Unprecedented atmospheric behavior disrupts one of Earth's most regular climate cycles

September 8, 2016
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

A team of scientists has discovered an unexpected disruption in one of the most repeatable atmospheric patterns.

The normal flow of air high up in the atmosphere over the equator, known as the quasi-biennial , was seen to break down earlier this year. These stratospheric winds are found high above the tropics, their direction and strength changes in a regular two- to three-year cycle which provides forecasters with an indication of the weather to expect in Northern Europe. Westerly winds are known to increase the chance of warm and wet conditions, while easterlies bring drier and colder weather.

Scientists from NCAS at the University of Oxford and the Met Office were part of an international team that observed the unusual behaviour in February, noticing a reversal of the expected pattern in the winds. This same team then identified the reason why.

The quasi-biennial oscillation is a regular feature of the climate system. On average, these equatorial eastward and westward winds alternate every 28 to 29 months, making them very predictable in the long term. The team's findings published in Science this week, show that this unexpected change in wind direction was caused by atmospheric waves in the Northern Hemisphere.

Dr Scott Osprey, an NCAS scientist at the University of Oxford, said: "The recent disruption in the quasi-biennial oscillation was not predicted, not even one month ahead. If we can get to the bottom of why the normal pattern was affected in this way, we could develop more confidence in our future seasonal forecasts."

Prof Adam Scaife, Head of Long-range Forecasting at the Met Office and Honorary Visiting Professor at the University of Exeter, said: "This unexpected disruption to the climate system switches the cycling of the quasi-biennial oscillation forever. And this is important as it is one of the factors that will influence the coming winter."

A return to more typical behaviour within the next year is forecast, though scientists believe that the quasi-biennial oscillation could become more susceptible to similar disruptions as the climate warms.

Later this month international research groups will meet in Oxford to discuss the origins and implications of this event.

Explore further: A strange thing happened in the stratosphere

More information: "An unexpected disruption of the atmospheric quasibiennial oscillation," Science, science.sciencemag.org/lookup/ … 1126/science.aah4156

Related Stories

A strange thing happened in the stratosphere

September 2, 2016

This disruption to the wind pattern - called the "quasi-biennial oscillation" - did not have any immediate impact on weather or climate as we experience it on Earth's surface. But it does raise interesting questions for the ...

British weather set to become more unsettled

September 9, 2014

The new research, published today (9 September 2014) in the International Journal of Climatology, shows that weather patterns over the UK have become distinctly more unstable, resulting in contrasting conditions from very ...

Recommended for you

Carbon coating gives biochar its garden-greening power

October 20, 2017

For more than 100 years, biochar, a carbon-rich, charcoal-like substance made from oxygen-deprived plant or other organic matter, has both delighted and puzzled scientists. As a soil additive, biochar can store carbon and ...

Cool roofs have water saving benefits too

October 20, 2017

The energy and climate benefits of cool roofs have been well established: By reflecting rather than absorbing the sun's energy, light-colored roofs keep buildings, cities, and even the entire planet cooler. Now a new study ...

141 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 08, 2016
"The recent disruption in the quasi-biennial oscillation was not predicted, not even one month ahead."

Why didn't the climate models capture or predict this event, even one month ahead? How accurate are these models which fail at this prediction. Have the Chicken Little end of the world predictions been adjusted to account for this? How much faith should we have for these models? Even in the face of continued uncertainty the climate evangelists insist we are doomed
Windchaser
3.7 / 5 (30) Sep 08, 2016
"The recent disruption in the quasi-biennial oscillation was not predicted, not even one month ahead."

Why didn't the climate models capture or predict this event, even one month ahead?


Climate models try to capture long-term statistics of the weather, i.e., the weather over periods of decades. They don't try to capture the short-term weather like what will happen one month from now. You'd be looking at a seasonal weather forecasts for that.

Some climate models do predict changes in the QBO with warming though, yes.

How much faith should we have for these models?


They get the majority of the large-scale mechanics of the atmosphere and oceans correct. Accuracy of weather phenomena at finer scales is being improved every year.

For the big picture, like whether we'll see significant warming with more CO2, they're great. But we'd like to narrow that down further, and we'd like to better understand regional impacts.
Guy_Underbridge
3.5 / 5 (28) Sep 08, 2016
How accurate are these models which fail at this prediction
LOL! only CD85 or one of his crew would would use evidence of the climate changing as evidence the climate's not changing.
xstos
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 08, 2016
Even in the face of continued uncertainty the climate evangelists insist we are doomed


If you keep dropping deuces in your back yard, eventually you'll be covered in scat. Humanity has been defecating all over its neighborhood for the better part of a century. It's not a question of if we're doomed, but when. I don't need any fancy models to read that writing on the wall. It takes a special kind of denial to have mounting evidence bombarding you from all directions, and nitpicking at inanities to keep that little nugget of fear/doubt at bay. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
nilbud
4.3 / 5 (13) Sep 09, 2016
Why don't you pray to one of your magic invisible friends cantlearn85 and leave the real people to deal with things which are real.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (11) Sep 09, 2016
@cantthink
So you and ignoracle are one and the same.
Your choice of words, "chicken littles", reveals the same obsession.
How should we call you? ignorethink ?
humy
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 09, 2016
"The recent disruption in the quasi-biennial oscillation was not predicted, not even one month ahead."

Why didn't the climate models capture or predict this event, even one month ahead? ...

Because climate models in general predict climate, not weather. Climate is not weather!
Its failure to predict a particular weather event is no mark against it as a climate model (not to be confused with a weather model).
Eikka
3 / 5 (8) Sep 09, 2016
Because climate models in general predict climate, not weather. Climate is not weather!


The oscillation is not weather but climate. A single rainstorm is weather. An annual rainstorm (such as the monsoon) is climate, and so are the prevailing and repeating wind conditions such as the quasi-biennial oscillation. It even says in the topic: "regular climate cycle"!

The real answer to the question is that climate models can't predict the sort of emergent behaviour because their resolution is too low. They compute wind patterns over a coarse grid and the small causes that lead to larger effects through the chaotic nature of the system get lost in the averages.

Eikka
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2016
The climate is a dynamic system that you can't simulate by a sort of bakery receipe of throwing in the ingredients and then running the program. The end result depends on the particular history of the system, such as where the winds were going 100 years ago, which determines why the winds are stuck in some certain pattern now.

It's like watching a traffic jam on the highway. It's a standing wave that gets stuck on some feature of the road and dissapates of its own eventually. If you try to simulate the jam by placing virtual cars on a virtual road, space them evenly and start them off at 65 mph, the pressure wave won't appear. It appears when a certain car at a specific unlucky moment brakes and causes the wave, and it dissapates when there's a suitable gap in the traffic.

You can do a monte carlo simulation and have the virtual cars brake and leave gaps, but you will get a distribution of probabilities instead of that exact traffic jam.
jaimesald
2.6 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2016
This looks like atmospheric disruption rather than climate disruption.
ForFreeMinds
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 09, 2016
"A return to more typical behaviour within the next year is forecast, though scientists believe that the quasi-biennial oscillation could become more susceptible to similar disruptions as the climate warms."

I can understand the forecast (what else are they to do - ignore history?) but IMHO the rest is pure speculation, with the desire to please those government mandarins who hand out money taken by force from taxpayers, provided the research is tilted towards giving those mandarins and their overlords more power.

Given the failure of climate models' predictions to come true (also due to this desire to please grant approving bureaucrats) and the models of the Sun which predict a coming Mauder Minimum (i.e. cold period) of a decade or more, shouldn't we be attempting to warm the planet instead of cool it (the AGW folks claim we can)?

The problem with cold, is politicians won't have an excuse to tax and control our energy use because we're supposedly making it too warm.
BrettC
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2016
"A return to more typical behaviour within the next year is forecast, though scientists believe that the quasi-biennial oscillation could become more susceptible to similar disruptions as the climate warms."

I agree. You have to wonder why the was statement was even included when the following statement indicates they need to research this more thoroughly.
Windchaser
2.9 / 5 (23) Sep 09, 2016
...the desire to please those government mandarins who hand out money taken by force from taxpayers, provided the research is tilted towards giving those mandarins and their overlords more power.

Given the failure of climate models' predictions to come true (also due to this desire to please grant approving bureaucrats) and the models of the Sun which predict a coming Mauder Minimum (i.e. cold period) of a decade or more, shouldn't we be attempting to warm the planet instead of cool it (the AGW folks claim we can)?


Oy, three problems here:
1) No scientist gets more money for reporting results that bureaucrats want. They get money for doing *good* science. And check the actual process; bureaucrats don't hand out the money. It's peer review.

2) Why would you trust the models for the Sun? They're far worse than climate models.

3) Why do you think a Maunder Minimum will cool the Earth more than CO2 will warm it? (run the numbers for yourself, they don't add up).
Eikka
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2016
bureaucrats don't hand out the money. It's peer review.


Actually that's the other way around. Peer review doesn't decide who gets paid, only who gets published. The money to the institution that hires the researchers comes from the bureaucrats who decide which institution is worth funding.

So, the institutions tend to hire researchers who turn up results that please the bureaucrats. If the institution turns up a lot of no results and politically inconvenient stuff, they get a cut in budget and have to reduce staff, so naturally you get institutions funding things that turn out alarming but weak evidence, such as cellphone radiation vs. cancer where weak evidence is pushed forward as concerning and always demanding of additional research.
Eikka
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 09, 2016
It would be naive to claim that in science there aren't any perennial hot topic issues that serve as moneymakers for the institutions that are funded by public money because the mechanism by which they are funded is in no ways immune to the sort of unplanned corruption.

If an institution hires a lot of researchers who study, let's say the lifecycle of snails, they'll have troubles securing funding. If they employ a lot of researchers who study climate change, they have an easier time getting funding from governments who are interested in funding climate research due to public demand - and the more the public is worried about the climate the more money they're willing to hand over.

Naturally then, the more worrysome the news, the more money flows to institutions that hire researchers who are biased to produce worrysome news. It's not a matter of individuals being corrupt but a kind of natural selection - a political and financial echo chamber.
Eikka
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2016
In a sense, it's like going to a fortune teller who looks at your hand and gasps in horror, and then asks you for $10 more to tell what the problem is.
Windchaser
3.2 / 5 (24) Sep 09, 2016
bureaucrats don't hand out the money. It's peer review.


Actually that's the other way around. Peer review doesn't decide who gets paid, only who gets published. The money to the institution that hires the researchers comes from the bureaucrats who decide which institution is worth funding.


Nah, you have this backwards. Yes, publications are peer-reviewed, but so are grants. Generally, a group of other scientists and mathematicians pick which grants get funded. And yes, the focus is on who can answer some scientific questions the best, not about coming up with wrong answers for some political gain. That would piss off everyone. Scientists *hate* political games. You don't take a bunch of your high school nerds, have them go through 10 years of college and graduate school so they can do research, and then tell them that they have to give up pursuing real science so they can act as a lapdog for some bureaucrat.
Windchaser
3.2 / 5 (24) Sep 09, 2016
Seriously, every time a politician tries to actually interfere with science, they throw a *fit*. It happened a bunch during W's administration.

The idea that the entire grant funding process could be corrupt, and yet 99% of scientists were okay with this? The conspiracy would have to be so vast; you might as well claim that everyone working for the government is a Snake Person.

'Sides, I've been friends with plenty of people who were on grant review processes, and they're not the kind of people to pick bad science.
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (14) Sep 10, 2016
Speaking as a bureaucrat, we have this thing in the public service where we constantly try to construct policy from the evidence base and work with researchers to do it. We pay for quality data. And we always have politicians coming in and trying to do it backwards - giving the policy and asking for the evidence to support it.

There are two important things to note here

1. The pollies don't FUND research to support their policy. They don't have the time to wait five to 10 years for that. They expect you to cobble together something from the existing research. And if the existing research doesn't support it, they ignore it and go ahead with the policy anyway. Or they say the research must be wrong and go ahead with the policy anyway.

2. Eikka is doing the exact same thing. Coming from a conclusion and then trying to work backwards and getting annoyed when the research doesn't support it. All of these baseless accusations are trying to justify the position he already has.
dustywells
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 10, 2016
They expect you to cobble together something from the existing research. And if the existing research doesn't support it, they ignore it and go ahead with the policy anyway. Or they say the research must be wrong and go ahead with the policy anyway.
Who pays the piper calls the tune. If research doesn't support a policy they can afford to pay someone else to provide media releases to massage public opinion.
dustywells
1 / 5 (5) Sep 10, 2016
The problem with cold, is politicians won't have an excuse to tax and control our energy use because we're supposedly making it too warm.
What do you think carbon tax is for? If you're not paying it yet, you will be soon, and it will be the tide to raise all other taxes.
dustywells
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2016
'Sides, I've been friends with plenty of people who were on grant review processes, and they're not the kind of people to pick bad science.
Eikka's description is quite close to my experience. We had to work within a set of parameters in making selections. Financing, both present and future, was always a major concern. Many applications were rejected because of a poor ROI.
ddaye
3.1 / 5 (9) Sep 11, 2016
Who pays the piper calls the tune. If research doesn't support a policy they can afford to pay someone else to provide media releases to massage public opinion.


As an actual piper I can affirm that --however as a former programmer and systems supporter, I would add that tunes-for-hire is a terrible way to inform a large complex society. Our concepts of markets are completely devoid of mechanisms to reward restraint --unlike all living organisms, and all human cultures. The difference is, organisms and cultures have evolved through countless survival crises, but modern market culture has never faced one global existential crisis before the present climate crisis. It's not my first choice of operating systems for facing this crisis.
Phys1
5 / 5 (9) Sep 11, 2016
Naturally then, the more worrysome the news, the more money flows to institutions that hire researchers who are biased to produce worrysome news. It's not a matter of individuals being corrupt but a kind of natural selection - a political and financial echo chamber.

There is an important restriction: the researchers have to make sense.
You are portraying science as a scam, but it is not.
There are mechanisms in place to keep it real.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 11, 2016
leetenant
All of these baseless accusations are trying to justify the position he already has.
Yep - one of the interesting patterns to watch - is how the political crowd on physorg - accuse science of x - and in doing so - are doing x themselves. As you point out - accusing scientists of drawing a conclusion, and then massaging facts to fit that conclusion - while doing exactly that - over, and over and over.
tinitus
Sep 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Sep 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2016
why not to establish the foundation, which would research just these aspects of global warming and which would publish them on peer-review basis?
Anything stopping you from doing just that?
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2016
why not to establish the foundation, which would research just these aspects of global warming and which would publish them on peer-review basis?
Anything stopping you from doing just that?


Or just going and reading the 200 years of research we have that does just that. I'm really tired of these people commenting on something they've never bothered to learn about. If you want to know about climate science, study it.
tinitus
Sep 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Sep 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Sep 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2016
I see, you started with denier blogs rather than the actual science. And you wonder why we just put you on ignore and go about our day.
tinitus
Sep 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2016
You literally just said you reject the science because you don't like what it says and so you've gone out and searched for an opinion that agrees with yours even though you acknowledge it's counter to the science itself. And... you're on ignore like the rest of the trolls. Why hang out at a science site at all?
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 11, 2016
The "actual science" is based on gregarious 99.99+ consensus, i.e. the groupthink
Yes - it is groupthink that bacteria can cause infection - that can lead to death. Stupid groupthink scientists - when will they learn no to talk to each other.

Sheesh. I noticed the silence regarding the question about you doing the research yourself..

dustywells
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2016
Yes - it is groupthink that bacteria can cause infection - that can lead to death. Stupid groupthink scientists - when will they learn no to talk to each other.
Perhaps it was before your time, but your mention of bacteria brings to my mind the difficulties presented to Dr. Barry Marshall when he and Dr. Warren postulated that helicobacter pylori were the cause of stomach ulcers.

Groupthink said that stress was the cause and milk was the antidote to ulcers.
greenonions
5 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2016
Groupthink said that stress was the cause and milk was the antidote to ulcers.
Funny how the conservatives always bring up the same topic - over and over. MR166 has had exactly the same discussion multiple times. The reply has been the same. Who won the Nobel Prize for this work? http://www.nobelp...ess.html I guess that would be validation of the scientific process right? You guys all read the same web sites - and regurgitate the same stories. You look really dumb. Yes - sometimes a new discovery turns the current wisdom on it's head. That is called science. And then everyone gets on board - and science moves on. Would you disagree that helicobacter cause stomach ulcers? That is called group think in your sad little world. Everyone else calls it science.
tinitus
Sep 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2016
1) No scientist gets more money for reporting results that bureaucrats want.

Nah, you have this backwards. Yes, publications are peer-reviewed, but so are grants.

Would you mind reposting this on every thread? There are just so many people here who don't know the first thing about how science (and scientists) work - and they sorely need to be educated.

As an actual piper I can affirm that --however as a former programmer and systems supporter

Science works differently than other professions. Peer review is anonymized. Reviewers don't know who the other reviewers are. That makes a dissenting reviewer opinion that is not based in facts stick out like a sore thumb. Reviewers must argue their criticisms (with facts!). They can't just go 'reject' and call it a day.
tinitus
Sep 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2016
Only theoretically - especially in small specialized communities and articles full of self-references to previous research it's virtually impossible to achieve anonymity

Even then you can mostly only track it back to a particular research group. I've been a reviewer, and yes: you can check the references. And in some (rare) cases you don't even need to because the paper is so close to your own area of research that youcan take an educated guess as to who its from.

That still doesn't let you pin it on an author, since there is a constant in and out-stream of PhD students (and to a lesser degree postdocs) who are the ones who write these papers.

And when all is said and done: the author doesn't matter. The content matters. You can't just make up a criticism because you don't like the author. It would be at odds with the reviews from the other reviewers.
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2016
The people who argue some mainstream opinion are always more informed than the rest,
Because the odds are highly in favor of mainstream opinion being factually correct - because millions of hours of work went into the science behind what you stupidly call "mainstream opinion." And yes - as acknowledged - new information sometimes comes along - and turns science on it's head (helicobactor). But then that becomes "mainstream opinion" doesn't it? The other way of looking at it is that the cranks are more informed - and astrology is really true - and the alignment of Mars and Jupiter really do affect whether I will get laid tonight.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2016
the fully anonymous review brings the risk of stealing of ideas and results, for example.

No, because you can't just steal an idea and publish it as your own.
a) That takes time and has to go through the same review process (and by then the original author already has published).
b) The 'thief' doesn't have the data. And in the methods and materials sections you have to detail how you gathered the data - which he can't
c) The 'thief' will have to go through the review porcess. Reviewers read papers in their own specialty so it's highly likely that someone would notice that the 'thief's' work isn't sufficiently novel (which are grounds for rejecting a paper)

Reviewers also all do research. Why would they bother to copy when they have original work of their own in the pipeline? Makes no sense.

Note that it's perfectly fine to take a published idea and extend/duplicate using other data/or otherwise work with it (referencing the original paper, of course)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2016
And how would a 'thief' even show precedence? The paper of the original author is on record with the editor of the journal he submitted to (including submission date). No matter whether it gets published or not.

Sure, as a reviewer you get to read this stuff first - possibly some months before anyone else. That's the only perk you get get for being a reviewer, since you get nothing else for your time. Reading others' papers always gives you ideas. That's what you read their papers *for*.
greenonions
5 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2016
tinitus
Otherwise I'm rather liberal,
Here in the U.S. there seems to be quite a correlation between Conservatism (U.S. style, often looked at as 'right wing') - and denialism/anti science. Hence the VP running with Donald Trump - is a creationist - who argues against evolution (just one example). There are always exceptions of course - but the main point I was making was more about the regurgitated information that the anti science gang throw around. There is clearly a network of web sites that keep the canned responses readily available to trot out once again - and make you feel all smug - about having regurgitated another falsehood. Science generally progresses very incrementally - so as you stupidly keep asserted - that is 'mainstream opinion.' Once in a while some big discovery is made - and a pretty radical shift happens (helicobactor) - that then becomes 'mainstream opinion.' These examples are a part of the process.
dustywells
1 / 5 (5) Sep 12, 2016
You guys all read the same web sites - and regurgitate the same stories. You look really dumb.
Very eloquently phrased and applies equally on both sides of the argument.

I was wondering why so many links offered as proof are to such ancient blogs.

First: Blogs are opinions that express support for a hypothesis. They are not scientific papers.

Second: Science does move on, old blogs remain old blogs with the same old misinformation.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2016
dusty
Very eloquently phrased and applies equally on both sides of the argument.
Well - to me - when you say both sides of the argument - that means those who support the process of science, and those who think personal opinion trumps facts. NOAA, NASA, PNAS, major Universities such as Berkley - are not blog sites.
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2016
"Unprecedented"... because we've been monitoring upper level wind patterns for so long, we have a fantastic grasp on exactly what they SHOULD be doing and when our models fail to predict their changes, something is obviously wrong. This is why level-headed people continue to question the judicious use of hyperbole in the media in regards to climate science.
Windchaser
2.9 / 5 (16) Sep 12, 2016
I started with it http://hockeyscht...law.html


...did you read both sides of the argument? Did you understand them?

If you think that the Greenhouse Gas Theory contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then I'm sorry but you don't understand one, or the other, or both. There is absolutely no contradiction at all.
dustywells
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2016
dusty
Very eloquently phrased and applies equally on both sides of the argument.
Well - to me - when you say both sides of the argument - that means ...
... whatever you want it to mean - out of context.

Both sides are guilty of promoting opinion from their own favorite blogs and both sides are equally devoid of proof. Quoting statistics, probabilities, and trends does not constitute proof but it is all we have available to us. Correlation does not imply causation and yet it seems that the entire AGW argument is based only on a statistical probability of a correlation between CO2 and a perceived warming trend.

However, it is foolish to blindly reject the _possibility_ of GW and CC because a forecast failed. The best we can do is to prepare for the worst and breathe a sigh of relief if it is better than expected.

The above is solely the _opinion_ of the commenter. No statistics were harmed in the preparation of this comment. :-)
greenonions
4.9 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2016
dusty
Both sides are guilty of promoting opinion from their own favorite blogs and both sides are equally devoid of proof
Using sloppy language over and over - makes you - well - sloppy. The only side of the issue I am on - is in support of the process of science - for learning about our universe. Proof is a mathematical term - and not relevant to subjects like climate change. What we have is evidence. You have been given credible science sites that detail out the evidence that supports the understanding that our climate is warming, and the most likely driver of that warming is ghg. If you know better than the body of scientists studying this topic - write a paper - get published - and take your lumps - that is how the process works. Making comments from the peanut gallery is not part of the process.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2016
dusty
it seems that the entire AGW argument is based only on a statistical probability of a correlation between CO2 and a perceived warming trend.

There is a warming trend - http://www.noaane...ars.html
It correlates very closely with C02 levels - https://en.wikipe...2009.png
There is evidence that ghg is the most likely driver of that warming http://www.ucsusa...K_bn2aM8
Scientists have looked for other factors that could be responsible for the warming - and so far every other candidate fails. Maybe you have some suggestions. Write a paper and get published.
Zzzzzzzz
2.6 / 5 (15) Sep 12, 2016
Delusional people have beliefs, and call science vs. beliefs arguments. These delusional people are psychos. There is no known cure for psychosis.
Windchaser
2.5 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2016
Correlation does not imply causation and yet it seems that the entire AGW argument is based only on a statistical probability of a correlation between CO2 and a perceived warming trend.


...no.

The vast majority of the argument for AGW is built upon the radiative physics which explains why and how CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This data is well-tested, both inside and outside of the lab.

The observed correlation between CO2 and temperatures is just icing on the cake; real-world confirmation that the same physics that operates in the lab also operates out in nature.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Sep 12, 2016
August was the hottest August on record - http://www.thever...ord-nasa
July was the hottest month on record - http://www.scienc...confirms
June marked 14 straight months of record heat - http://www.noaa.g...or-globe
2015 broke all records - http://www.nasa.g...-in-2015
2014 really was the hottest year on record - http://www.mother...asa-noaa

Just saying....

antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2016
Just saying....

Just braying....
FIXED THAT FOR YOU.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2016
dusty
it seems that the entire AGW argument is based only on a statistical probability of a correlation between CO2 and a perceived warming trend.


There is a warming trend - http://www.noaane...ars.html
It correlates very closely with C02 levels - https://en.wikipe...2009.png
There is evidence that ghg is the most likely driver of that warming http://www.ucsusa...K_bn2aM8
Scientists have looked for other factors that could be responsible for the warming - and so far every other candidate fails. Maybe you have some suggestions. Write a paper and get published.

You've been evangelised.
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2016
cantdrive
You've been evangelised.
So in response to this bullshit
the entire AGW argument is based only on a statistical probability of a correlation between CO2 and a perceived warming trend.
I present a series of factual statements - with supporting data. And the only comment you can muster is something about being evangelised. I guess you fall right in there with the dummies who think that their opinion presents a valid argument against evidence.
Windchaser
2.2 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2016
You've been evangelised.


By science!
dustywells
2 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2016
August was the hottest August on record - http://www.thever...ord-nasa
July was the hottest month on record - http://www.scienc...confirms
June marked 14 straight months of record heat - http://www.noaa.g...or-globe
2015 broke all records - http://www.nasa.g...-in-2015
2014 really was the hottest year on record - http://www.mother...asa-noaa
...on record...

If your records were to span January to March you could rationally predict that since the records only show that the days are always lengthening and that there is a distinct warming trend, that days would continue to lengthen and get progressively warmer until we would have no more sunsets and temperatures well above 200C. It's a silly example meant to illustrate the fallacy of drawing conclusions based on small a sample size. It is not a rejection of the validity of the records that you cite.
howhot3
4.1 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2016
It's so typical of the bozo rightwing denier goon squad to propose the most ludicrous BS against climate change. The article says
Unprecedented atmospheric behavior disrupts one of Earth's most regular climate cycles
and the bozo's just pretend that it doesn't have any consequences to the planet's future. From the article; '"This unexpected disruption to the climate system switches the cycling of the quasi-biennial oscillation forever. And this is important as it is one of the factors that will influence the coming winter."'. So in other words the deniers goon squad are just dissing on something that will now be with us for 1000s of years due to global warming.
dustywells
1 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2016
There is a warming trend
It correlates very closely with C02 levels
There is evidence that ghg is the most likely driver of that warming
Are you saying that quoting statistics, probabilities, and trends validates a hypothesis?

"Quoting statistics, probabilities, and trends does not constitute proof but it is all we have available to us. Correlation does not imply causation and yet it seems that the entire AGW argument is based only on a statistical probability of a correlation between CO2 and a perceived warming trend."

Scientists have looked for other factors that could be responsible for the warming - and so far every other candidate fails.
Have looked and are still looking. Apparently scientists are not yet satisfied with their findings.
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2016
dusty
It's a silly example meant to illustrate the fallacy of drawing conclusions based on small a sample size. It is not a rejection of the validity of the records that you cite
Then why even post the comment? You see - if I gave you 10,000 years of records - you would find some stupid comment that has no relevance to the science - because you are a denier - and evidence is of no interest to you. http://www.realcl...olocene/ Do you have any explanation for the spike at the end of the graph there dusty? What about cantdrive - any contribution? I would love to read your papers - send us a link.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2016
dusty
Are you saying that quoting statistics, probabilities, and trends validates a hypothesis?
No - I am not. I am saying that we are in a warming trend. We are searching for the explanation of that trend. We have looked at solar activity, Milankovich cycles, vulcanism, all manor of possibilities - and only one so far cannot be discounted. Where is your paper on the subject? What is your explanation for the warming trend? You seem to think you know everything - tell us what is causing the current warming....
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2016
dusty
Have looked and are still looking. Apparently scientists are not yet satisfied with their findings.
Scientists are never satisfied with their findings - new information is always welcome. If you knew the first thing about science - that would be obvious to you. So where is your explation? Link us to your papers. Today is your lucky day genius - you can make history - finally solve the riddle.... Did you read the Union of Concerned Scientist's discussion of the evidence that supports the hypothesis that GHG is causing the current warming trend? Do you have a rebuttal? Send it in for publication. We await your wisdom.
dustywells
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2016
It's so typical of the bozo leftwing extremist goon squad to propose the most ludicrous BS for climate change. The article says
Unprecedented atmospheric behavior disrupts one of Earth's most regular climate cycles
and the bozos just scream that it will have dire consequences to the planet's future. From the article; '"A return to more typical behaviour within the next year is forecast"'. So in other words the extremist goon squad are just predicting the end of the world from another little anomaly.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2016
dusty
So in other words the extremist goon squad are just predicting the end of the world
I just re-read the article dusty. Nothing in there about the end of the world. Perhaps you should go back to school and learn to read.
dustywells
1 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2016
It's a silly example meant to illustrate the fallacy of drawing conclusions based on small a sample size. It is not a rejection of the validity of the records that you cite
Then why even post the comment?
It says why in the quote you used; "to illustrate the fallacy of drawing conclusions based on small a sample size."

Accepting the validity of the records does not preclude rejecting or questioning the validity of your interpretation.
dustywells
1 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2016
So in other words the extremist goon squad are just predicting the end of the world
I just re-read the article dusty. Nothing in there about the end of the world. Perhaps you should go back to school and learn to read.
LOL. It is not in reference to the report, this is a quote of and a slight modification of the last comment above by howhot3. :-)
howhot3
5 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2016
It's so typical of the bozo leftwing extremist goon squad to propose the most ludicrous BS for climate change. The article says
Unprecedented atmospheric behavior disrupts one of Earth's most regular climate cycles
and the bozos just scream that it will have dire consequences to the planet's future. From the article; '"A return to more typical behaviour within the next year is forecast"'. So in other words the extremist goon squad are just predicting the end of the world from another little anomaly.

Copy cat twit. Why don't you go read a physics book or something to fill that space in your hollow skull. And from the article; "oscillation could become more susceptible to similar disruptions as the climate warms."

Since global warming will continue for the next 1500 years... Goon squad for you baby.

dustywells
1 / 5 (8) Sep 13, 2016
Copy cat twit. Why don't you go read a physics book or something to fill that space in your hollow skull. And from the article; "oscillation could become more susceptible to similar disruptions as the climate warms."

Since global warming will continue for the next 1500 years... Goon squad for you baby.
Yes Ma'am, Sir.

So typical of the alarmists. Doesn't know the difference between "could" and "will."
howhot3
5 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2016
So typical of the alarmists. Doesn't know the difference between "could" and "will."


So your concern is the article says; "oscillation *could* become more susceptible" and doesn't say *will:*?!? The article is a warning bozo. It's saying that in all likelihood global warming is effecting slowly changing upper-atmospheric weather patterns which have impact on the lower atmosphere's weather. "So what", you probably say... copy cat twit you are.

Think of it this way nimrod, the big weather pattern's like the cold-front's, the H's and L migrate along up-atmospheric movement's, Our winter's are controlled by the upper-atmosphere winds that are typically separated at the equator. Global warming has lofted the winds and for the first time the wind streams have crossed over the equator. It will continue to do so until global temps drop (not in 1000's of years). So like the rise in global ocean levels we face more man-made climate change BS you deniers deny.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2016
@dustywells in particular & the rest of the woefully unscientific AGW denier camp, sorry you missed high school physics (HSPhy) education :-(

Not sensible AGW deniers want to remain fully ignorant of Radiative Heat Transfer ?
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Predicated on *very* basic HSPhy
1. Everything moves all the time
2. Atoms absorb/radiate light whenever there's energy differential

No 2 re (especially *all* gases) fully proven (>120yrs) & Chemical Engineers (CE) use it daily, easily tested, reliably quantified by simple instrumentation & Never been refuted - ever !

NB> The 100,000 new Physics students each year unleashed @ university labs globally confirm it !

But, can't AGW deniers imagine even 1 student in 120yrs & lecturers/post docs too would make headlines & win prizes if an anomaly were found ?

You can discover & check @ institutes yourself !
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

All Physicists & CEs wrong, yah Think ?
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (15) Sep 13, 2016
dustywells claimed
Both sides are guilty of promoting opinion from their own favorite blogs and both sides are equally devoid of proof
Wrong ! learn basic Physics: Radiative Heat Transfer/Specific Heat

Your 2 "sides" are
a. Those intelligent appreciators of the overwhelming Physics critical mass of >120yrs
&
b. AGW deniers who *only* show undisciplined emotional attachment & refuse education !

dustywells
Quoting statistics, probabilities, and trends does not constitute proof but it is all we have available to us
Wrong !

Physics tested excruciatingly by many fresh wide eyed new students yearly wanting to learn & often to make a name for themselves @ educational institutes globally.

That Physics hasn't been proven wrong & its easy to see why, its foundational upon the very simplest interactions = Atomic Motion ie Statistical Mechanics !

@dustywells, mature approach is to converge & pin it down, ie dialectic

State what Physics you imagine is wrong ?
Guy_Underbridge
2.3 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2016
greenonions
5 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2016
dusty
It says why in the quote you used; "to illustrate the fallacy of drawing conclusions based on small a sample size."
But then you admit that it is a 'silly' example - which it is. I then give you 10,000 years of data - which of course should be a large enough data set - and not a small sample size. Where is your explanation for the current warming trend? Where is your refutation for the evidence presented by the Union of Concerned Scientists? Where is Cantdrive and the other deniers such as yourself when actually asked to produce evidence? Crickets......
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2016
heheh... http://xkcd.com/1732/

Love the mouse-over image text.

Doesn't know the difference between "could" and "will."

The sun could rise tomorrow. That the sun will rise tomorrow is not a supportable statement with *absolute* certainty. Get the difference? Science doesn't deal in absolutes (only as a matter of shorthand, but there is always the proviso that there is some uncertainty. The likelyhood of such uncertainty can be very small ....e.g. "the probability that all gravitational effects observed have just been random motions and something like gravity doesn't actually exists" is not nil, but it is very unlikely)
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (15) Sep 13, 2016
dustywells absolutely nailed it with
So typical of the alarmists. Doesn't know the difference between "could" and "will."
Tells us in no uncertain terms he/she/it stuck unscientifically in 19th/early 20th century banal & dumb old static paradigm of hopeful Determinism !

dustywells thus desperately needs an education in a key tenets of the Scientific Process
which is soundly founded upon Probabilism re Science asymptotic progress in respect of all knowledge with the underlying judgement factor always "The balance of probabilities"

Along with other Q's, can he/she/it delineate the "sides" of his polar view re; Physics, Scientific Method & Evidence ie. Which is most likely true/provable & proportionately by what level of degree/confidence:-

a. Physics in respect of Radiative Heat Transfer demonstrated at all temperatures on differing material specific heats globally Eg atmosphere/water consistent with GHG increase

or

b. AGW is just political hype for $

Hmm ?
jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2016
August was the hottest August on record - http://www.thever...ord-nasa

Just saying....



"On record" being a VERY important piece of information to incorporate into the bigger picture.
howhot3
5 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2016
"On record" being like for the past 1 million years? Sure NOAA's very accurate "global" temperature measurements only date back to 1880, proxy measurements dating back over a million years indicate the similar "WOW, what a hockey stick" graph. Just look at the xkcd earth time line;

http://xkcd.com/
leetennant
5 / 5 (8) Sep 14, 2016
The best bit of which was the mouse text

[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 15, 2016
jeffensley elsewhere claims he's an "Environment Scientist" (ES) of Virginia Tech wrote
"On record" being a VERY important piece of information to incorporate into the bigger picture
& also
...level-headed people continue to question the judicious use of hyperbole in the media in regards to climate science
Whilst scientists who've studied well accepted proven Physics of; Enthalpy, Specific Heat & especially Radiative Heat Transfer are cognisant of key differences between qualitative terms (as emotively used by media) & quantitative terms (used with discipline by Scientists), you don't write like any ES I've ever known !

jeffensley however, like media you prefer qualitative terms & throwing satire around tangentially as if you either haven't been educated, trained or experienced as an ES or have an agenda to push - such as obfuscating Science to muddying the waters :-(

Surely as claimed ES, you've at least studied Instrumentation & Measurement Methods ?
jeffensley
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2016
"On record" being like for the past 1 million years? Sure NOAA's very accurate "global" temperature measurements only date back to 1880, proxy measurements dating back over a million years indicate the similar "WOW, what a hockey stick" graph. Just look at the xkcd earth time line;

http://xkcd.com/


I can't believe you got multiple 5-star ratings for saying our "record" is millions of years old... sigh. The record they are referring to most definitely is the measured (aka the somewhat accurate) one.

This past August was the hottest one since record-keeping began 136 years ago, according to a monthly analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.


Sorry that facts (in this case the insignificance of our record) steals the thunder from your attempted fear-mongering but there you have it.
Phys1
not rated yet Sep 15, 2016
dusty
Have looked and are still looking. Apparently scientists are not yet satisfied with their findings.
Scientists are never satisfied with their findings

When they retire?
Windchaser
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2016
dusty
Have looked and are still looking. Apparently scientists are not yet satisfied with their findings.
Scientists are never satisfied with their findings

When they retire?


Nah, it's just wrong. Most scientists definitely get satisfied with findings, once they're sufficiently worked over and tested.

You don't see a lot of debate among scientists about a flat Earth these days. Why? Because they're satisfied that the Earth is round.
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2016
jeffensley with uneducated obfuscation betraying facile focus
I can't believe you got multiple 5-star ratings for saying our "record" is millions of years old..
Scientists (with integrity) don't care a damn about mere votes - especially on a forum frequented by; socks, cheats & politically motivated low life obfuscators !

jeffensley might grow with
The record they are referring to most definitely is the measured (aka the somewhat accurate) one
Yes AND factor it re your claim as an Environmental Scientist (ES) re Radiative Heat Transfer & Enthalpy - can you do that, thus go a small way to redeem your tone as an ES ?

jeffensley wrote
Sorry that facts (in this case the insignificance of our record) steals the thunder from your attempted fear-mongering but there you have it
Not at all because you as a claimed ES *should* know about "Rate of Change" (RoC) !

Why jeffensley are you so blitheringly Ignorant re significance of RoC ???

Physics/Math/RoC !
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2016
Whilst scientists who've studied well accepted proven Physics of; Enthalpy, Specific Heat & especially Radiative Heat Transfer are cognisant of key differences between qualitative terms (as emotively used by media) & quantitative terms (used with discipline by Scientists), ...
Say What?

Please explain how "Enthalpy, Specific Heat & especially Radiative Heat Transfer" apply to climate change.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2016
dustywells retort
Say What?
Called "Education" ie Accepted method; first get to learn something then if you understand what've have learned, then you can make considered intelligent comment !

dustywells asked
Please explain how "Enthalpy, Specific Heat & especially Radiative Heat Transfer" apply to climate change
Based on two accepted fundamental core precepts of Physics, never refuted, fully proven:-

1 All matter moves all the time
2 All atoms (in all phases) absorb & radiate light whenever there's energy difference

Radiative Forcing is key issue of current contributor to climate change & arises from (Item 2) Radiative Heat Transfer.

This is part of physics teaching at highschool as introduction then expanded upon first year uni Physics as part of common first year Engineering units. Since you've missed schooling at the basic level then start with simplest here
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

ie CO2 adds 1.5 Watts per sq meter !

tbc
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2016
Continued @dustywells,

For gases issue of radiative forcing has added importance as molecules also collide which transfers energy to not just make other molecules move but, also to cause any molecules to oscillate along their bonds (ie vibrate atom positions along bonds).

If the oscillation energy is sufficient, molecule gives off light at various frequencies - in respect of climate change & greenhouses gases this is given off as Infra Red light ie IR with CO2 & H2O overlapping their IR spectra as well as colliding with each other.This link show how key greenhouse gases vibrational states have different frequencies of light across the spectrum.

http://cbc.arizon.../sim/gh/

Eg Click on the water & CO2 molecules to explore it fully & learn the importance so you understand

Note: Our nitrogen//oxygen rich atmosphere highly transparent to visible & IR, if it were not for CO2/H2O our day temps in the shade would be approx -15 deg C or so !

TBC
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2016
Continued @dustywells,

Specific heat is capacity of materials to store/release heat when there's temperature difference, this is also taught at high-school, expanded at uni also, simplest is
https://en.wikipe...capacity

Oceans cover Earth 70%, they absorb most visible light energy, oceans & land convert visible light energy to heat at the surface & IR light emission

Water has Much higher heat capacity than air, if you add up mass of oceans & compare with mass of atmosphere & factor in huge difference in Specific Heat ie compare 1Kg of water with 1Kg of air *then* integrate (Calculus) you get a figure of about 4000 - which means that oceans in total can store/absorb 4000 times the heat as all atmosphere protecting us from extremes if oceans stay cool

As well as IR some heat carried into air by water vapour, with higher CO2 this means H2O in air rises meaning more IR retention = Positive feedback
https://en.wikipe...ometrics

TBC
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2016
Continued @dustywells,

Rapid atmosphere CO2 rise over last 180 or so years is confirmed to be primarily from fossil fuel sources as Carbon & Oxygen from plant combustion & plant/animal respiration has different isotope ratios.

ie. Fossil fuels more radioactive - the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion has a clearly different "radio-logical signature" all based upon proven nucleotide/isotopic experiments/measurements known for several decades.

Oil companies knew of all these issues at least back to mid 1980's but, kept it quiet & some deniers for them claim there are issues of Science not understood to cast doubt so they can continue to sell fossil fuels etc.

Only issue not understood is How that *extra* heat distribution changes.

ie. Re Statistical Mechanics & Enthalpy, its confirmed there *is* extra heat without doubt

How heat moves around, due to CO2 rapid change with lifting H2O, is improving.

Also some food plants don't do well with higher CO2
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Sep 19, 2016
Mike
Thank you for that clear explanation.

I do have another question; since water has the ability to absorb so much more heat than CO2 and through convection carry that heat to higher latitudes, why has H2O been dismissed as a factor in global warming?
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2016
dustywells asked
.. since water has the ability to absorb so much more heat than CO2 and through convection carry that heat to higher latitudes
Careful, seems you're conflating specific heat with IR absorption/emission spectra - very different issues *not* to be confused

Liquid H2O specific heat > liquid CO2 but, in atmosphere both gas, so these arise

1 Comparative mass per unit volume
2 Saturation
3 Precipitation
4 Re 3 atmospheric retention

Properties combination negate water to water-vapour positive feedback (PF) but, they enhance CO2 to water-vapour PF. Touched on a little see my Psychrometry link, also very well studied & tested for >120 yrs

dustywells
.. why has H2O been dismissed as a factor in global warming?
No. see 1-4, esp 2, H2O saturates easily ie weather moves then precipitates very quickly & within 7 days !

CO2 lifts & Holds up H2O which rains/snows cyclically but, CO2 can't do that, there for >100 yrs !

ie. Reduce CO2, H2O rains out
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2016
.. why has H2O been dismissed as a factor in global warming?
No. see 1-4, esp 2, H2O saturates easily ie weather moves then precipitates very quickly & within 7 days !

CO2 lifts & Holds up H2O which rains/snows cyclically but, CO2 can't do that, there for >100 yrs !

ie. Reduce CO2, H2O rains out
That's all true where natural cycles are considered exclusively.

But H2O becomes a completely different factor when many thousands of tons of water vapor are daily injected into the upper troposphere where it would normally be very scarce.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2016
dustywells claims
But H2O becomes a completely different factor when many thousands of tons of water vapor are daily injected into the upper troposphere where it would normally be very scarce
No !

Please try & get a grip on Psychrometry, H2O doesnt know whether its there because of natural or artificial "injection" is very straightforward physics proven for >120 years, please read & digest detail
https://en.wikipe...ometrics

Need to appreciate please atmosphere is *not* static AND that H2O in atmosphere saturates very easily indeed re temperature - ie Psychrometry, humidity ratio, saturation !

Any H2O "push", lifted/injected to atmosphere by *any* means can't stay there for any more than most 7 days *unless* its base heat lift is maintained - at present its done by CO2 mostly & to a lesser but, increasing extent by N2O release from nitrogen fertiliser decay

H2O leaves easily as rain/snow re psychrometry - simple & proven please read on it ?
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2016
Please try & get a grip on Psychrometry,

H2O leaves easily as rain/snow re psychrometry - simple & proven please read on it ?
Psychrometry offers a fairly simple calculation to determine a ratio of water vapor, temperature, and pressure. This ratio used to be reported as relative humidity in weather reports. At 100% atmosphere is saturated and water vapor normally condenses.

Did I miss or misunderstand something? I don't yet understand how this explains your statement:
Properties combination negate water to water-vapour positive feedback (PF) but, they enhance CO2 to water-vapour PF.
Can you supply some links that offer more depth for me to study?

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2016
dustywells claims
Psychrometry offers a fairly simple calculation to determine a ratio of water vapor, temperature, and pressure
No, more than that as slightest change in temp can result in
precipitation rain/snow. The science/math confirm unless there is heating or insulation water will always return to lowest energy state ie Can't have positive feedback in the atmosphere.

dustywells writes
At 100% atmosphere is saturated and water vapor normally condenses
More complex than that, need to understand math eg calculus ie clouds suspended droplet equilibria etc

dustywells wrote
Did I miss or misunderstand something? I don't yet understand how this explains your statement: "Properties combination negate water to water-vapour positive feedback (PF) but, they enhance CO2 to water-vapour PF "
Atmosphere neither homogeneous or without movement or without temperature fluctuation thus H2O always precipitates unless driven back by Eg CO2 or a heat source.

TBC
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2016
@dustywells,
These things are keenly covered in various Physics/Engineering courses 1st year uni as a start, not that easy as it needs Calculus to appreciate limits, rates of changes & thermal equilibria calcs

Psychrometry charts more than you imply, they are the basis of definitive understanding of water/air gas mixtures.

Unlike water, CO2 cannot precipitate & cannot saturate to reach any sort of asymptote - despite wild temp variations CO2 is in atmosphere for >100 yrs.

Psychrometry charts show that adding heat raises humidty to saturation point & likewise reducing heat reduces humidity to saturation point. That link just the start of it...

If you want to know more & especially delve into experimental methods which you can devise for yourself then a uni course is essential in Physics eg as An Environmental Scientist can learn as it affects water availability & heat movement for life...

You can start by getting uni text books & easier these days Google Scholar
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2016
@dustywells,
These things are keenly covered in various Physics/Engineering courses 1st year uni as a start, not that easy as it needs Calculus to appreciate limits, rates of changes & thermal equilibria calcs
Ok, so you're politely saying that I'm too dumb to understand. :-) I'm OK with that.

Psychrometry charts show that adding heat raises humidty to saturation point & likewise reducing heat reduces humidity to saturation point. That link just the start of it...
Is that true? I had that backwards. I understood that adding heat would increase the capacity to hold water.

I also understood, perhaps mistakenly, that precipitation occurs when the ratio reaches or exceeds 100%
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2016
dustywells
.. you're politely saying that I'm too dumb to understand
No, dumb is those advised to seek info rel proven physics, ignore & come back repeating old unsupportable claims easily manipulated by propaganda. Easy these days to do a (free) online course or sitting in on lectures at closest uni & asking considered Q's at end

Maybe I should have said IOW, these issues are covered at uni but, best understood via good Math knowledge & appreciating conjunctions Eg time/altitude re atmosphere there's constant movement = any local region *always* either increasing humidity or giving it up as rain/snow

dustywells writes
I had that backwards. I understood that adding heat would increase the capacity to hold water
No, directly related. Hotter equals greater capacity yes And will hold on to more water as evaporates from surface = higher humidity

dustywells
.. precipitation occurs when the ratio reaches or exceeds 100%
Mostly & re suspension/clouds

TBC
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2016
slightest change in temp can result in precipitation rain/snow.
Temperature and pressure are both reduced as parcel of air with water vapor rises and expands. Any other reasons for temp to change?
Can't have positive feedback in the atmosphere.
Another gap in my understanding? Please expand what is expected to feed back; why no positive feedback and does that imply negative feedback?
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2016
dustywells
Temperature and pressure are both reduced as parcel of air with water vapor rises and expands. Any other reasons for temp to change?
Radiative transfer works both ways & at any temps above absolute zero all the time & atmosphere moving & heat moves towards cold - Eg wind.

dustywells asks
Please expand what is expected to feed back; why no positive feedback and does that imply negative feedback?
Re enthalpy/climate change, -ve fb things like albedo Eg reflection off ice etc.

+ve fb; As base CO2 raises HO vapor it adds more thermal resistivity just as if there was more CO2 without that H2O vapor.

But, as H2O vapor condenses in ~7 day cycle re atmospheric moves H2O can't act as its own +ve fb as H2O vapor saturate/condenses in that 7 days. CO2 cannot saturate & at our temps also cannot condense, it is therefore *always* lifting H2O after it rains/snows & immediately

IOW
Condensing GHG (CGHG) lifted by Non-CGHG, reduce Non-CGHG then CGHG's fall

TBC
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2016
@dustywells
Pls read carefully re Radiative Forcing
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Nb 1
In addition, the CO2 blanket layers reflect Infra Red (IR) at all altitudes probabilistically 50% up & 50% down & *any* downward directed IR Exactly the same as if a IR bar radiator turned on facing the surface from space ie There is No IR distinction as from radiative emissions of light from molecules they're the same including from; fire, nuclear reaction, sun etc A basic tenet of Physics !

Therefore this is why understanding Psychrometry is crucial to understand why H2O can't have positive feedback by itself as it always returns to its minimum level via the ~7 day saturate/condense cycle - complicated a little by clouds which also absorb visible re scattering & reflect IR back down As Well.

When H2O vapour reduces after precipitation its base line is already higher by CO2 - see Nb 1

One of the easiest Physics to demonstrate in Labs @ a uni & confirmed

TBC
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2016
@dustywells

Now you have two axioms/propositions:-
a. IR from Green House Gases is exactly the same as IR from a heater, fire, sun etc
&
b. IR warms water (especially at or near ground) causing more evaporation ie raising humidity &
thus increasing or rather amplifying the effect of CO2 does by a proportionate amount.

From Psychrometry one learns there is very precise & predictable relationship between temperature & humidity incl limits re saturation/condensation ie Precipitation

Eg Take a transparent box with some water/air & inside at equilibrium temp/humidity of 20C/50%RH & then shine IR light on it. More water goes into air & *stays* there until either the water vapour can shed energy via radiative emission (to something colder) OR heat source taken away.

Now because of IR equivalence re a. above substitute for the IR light a CO2 increase, when added then water vapour goes up, when reduced water vapour goes down. As earth is big it takes ~7 days

TBC
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2016
@dustywells

Here's the problem & a worse which further amplifies CO2/H2O equation & introduces more greenhouse gases (GHG) which were irrelevant pre industrial times.

CO2 cannot reach saturation point as all it does is continue to displace all other gases.
H2O lifted by CO2 radiative forcing - acting exactly like a bar heater or exactly as if Sun's output up.

Due to demands for more crop productivity more fertilisers chemicals deployed which means more
N2O released into atmosphere - this is also a GHG so therefore lifts H20 more as if its more CO2
but, more powerful again.
Higher temps means more Bact. decay/fires = more CO2

Add loss of albedo @ near equatorial regions ie Areas where Sun's energy hits Earth at close 90 deg angle of incidence. WThis means less visible reflected which means more absorbed which means more IR radiated - getting to runaway effect :/

Angle of Sun's energy incidence @ poles close to zero hence ice increase there negligible re albedo
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2016
the CO2 blanket layers reflect Infra Red (IR) at all altitudes probabilistically 50% up & 50% down
How is that determined? I understood that the CO2 "blanket" was diffused throughout the atmosphere and had to absorb and then re-radiate the IR and not act simply as a mirror. Intuitively it seems to me that the radiation should be spherical.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2016
dustywells asks
How is that determined?
Computationally via Quantum Mechanics, although a 1-2year course for existing engineers after they've already done physics depending upon Eng branch, essentials; with minimal math & some enlightening history can be gleaned here, though for the neophyte prob best limit it to 2 or 3 vids per day to allow core aspects opportunity to gel, link to playlist for one of the top lecture series for my family, employees & clients
https://www.youtu...2FE7B02C

dustywells wrote
.. the CO2 "blanket" was diffused throughout the atmosphere and had to absorb and then re-radiate the IR and not act simply as a mirror
Its not that it "has to" it does !

Completely unavoidable, a Physics imperative proven for >120years

dustywells states
Intuitively it seems to me that the radiation should be spherical
Correct, each "blanket" a molecule thick layered from surface to top of meaningful ~9Km

tbc
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2016
Continued @dustywells

As preface for 2nd part of my last most immediate post:-

1. Imagine basket ball sitting on a table & a single gas molecule at center
2. Horizontally cut the ball in half with a molecule thick knife all the way through
3. This knife, as it cuts, disturbs the gas molecule with vibrational energy (same as a collision or IR)

a. Surely its clear lower half of the ball (~50%) is below the cut whilst upper half (~50%) is above the cut.
b. A very tiny line if neither above or below - it is minuscule & can be considered binary later ie up/down

The perturbation of 3 above causes the gas molecule to vibrate such that it release that energy as
an IR photon with >99.999% in total going either up or down - ie Spherical & Probabilistic, this is
where the Science of Statistical Mechanics comes in...

Now use calculus ie Integration to Sum all the billions of molecule thick blanket layers together
with a function for gas partial pressure re altitude

TBC
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2016
Continued @dustywells

Result by straightforward calculus plus a nuance/minor niggle re vibrational state permutation of collisions *with* other Infra Red (IR) results in long path length absorption if IR comes from surface up to space vs IR that comes from space down to surface, as experiment confirms

Unfortunate fact of issue re enthalpy/climate change is much less IR comes from the top down despite sensation of heat from our sun when we feel energy on our skin on sunny days

Because bulk of energy from the sun is visible light (VL) not IR, this VL is not affected by most greenhouse gases at all & passes straight through (any minimal IR from the sun similarly 50% up/50% down) but, when that large VL hits our surface whether land, ocean or skin etc most immediately absorbed & re-emitted as IR

Thence the problem arises & very well demonstrated by (hot Venus) & especially by warm Mars as can reach >25 deg C in the shade in summer despite atmosphere 100x less than Earth !
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2016
Pls read carefully re Radiative Forcing
It seems that we have enjoyed a very stimulating Gedankenexperiment that has little if any relevance to CC if the following quote is to be accepted. Unless I am misreading it, it voids rf's application in open atmosphere.

In the context of climate change, the term "forcing" is restricted to changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system imposed by external factors, with no changes in stratospheric dynamics, no surface and tropospheric feedbacks in operation (i.e., no secondary effects induced because of changes in tropospheric motions or its thermodynamic state), and no dynamically induced changes in the amount and distribution of atmospheric water (vapour, liquid, and solid forms).

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2016
dustywells states
.. stimulating Gedankenexperiment that has little if any relevance to CC if the following quote is to be accepted. Unless I am misreading it, it voids rf's application ..
In the context of climate change, the term "forcing" is restricted to changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system imposed by external factors...)
No & Not that facile

Key phrase is radiation balance ie beneath perturbation factors ie Integration
It sets a baseline can be called the quiescent condition *because* its *integrated* re heat overall.

Eg
Get a bath full of water, now heat one end with an immersion heater (H), obviously the water has heat added to it & the bath will show changes in heat movement; convection, conduction & radiative

Now move the water around with any action as consequence of H ie moves things around between areas related to H impact - this is weather/climate - whilst total heat STILL goes up continuously - that's RF !
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2016
Key phrase is radiation balance ie beneath perturbation factors ie Integration
It sets a baseline can be called the quiescent condition *because* its *integrated* re heat overall.
Then it adds all these caveats
1.with no changes in stratospheric dynamics,
2.no surface and tropospheric feedbacks in operation (i.e., no secondary effects induced because of changes in tropospheric motions or its thermodynamic state),
3.and no dynamically induced changes in the amount and distribution of atmospheric water (vapour, liquid, and solid forms).

Doesn't this restrict Forcing to static systems similar to your previously posted illustration
Eg Take a transparent box with some water/air & inside at equilibrium temp/humidity of 20C/50%RH & then shine IR light on it...
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2016
Get a bath full of water, now heat one end with an immersion heater (H), obviously the water has heat added to it & the bath will show changes in heat movement; convection, conduction & radiative

Now move the water around with any action as consequence of H ie moves things around between areas related to H impact - this is weather/climate - whilst total heat STILL goes up continuously - that's RF !
I might be persuaded to consider that model if we were discussing a liquid environment such as ocean currents but weather/climate is in a gaseous environment.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2016
dustywells asks
Doesn't this restrict Forcing to static systems similar to your previously posted illustration
No its heat !

Think it through on basis of Heat re Statistical Mechanics
https://en.wikipe...echanics

Just because there are local movements of mass whether solid, liquid or gas - do you imagine
heat is then *not* absorbed/emitted No ! Basic Physics - Sry its high school stuff :/

I get impression you're purposely misreading that phrase to seize upon as a "way out", base heat is STILL being added - don't conflate base heat addition with movement of mass

Also get a grip on liquids vs gases re heat - they are Both molecules, the are Both subject to all exact same radiative transfer issues at all frequencies.

Only addition is phase change ie from liquid to gas & back - this (again) is why H2O vapour has nil self +ve feedback effects ie As CO2 Radiative Forcing is the exact *same* as IR "as if" an increase in suns output !

TBC
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2016
dustywells wrote
I might be persuaded to consider that model if we were discussing a liquid environment such as ocean currents but weather/climate is in a gaseous environment
Beg Pardon, as per my last post review your high school Physics & reminding basics

1 Everything moves all the time
2 All atoms radiate/absorb light upon opportunity - especially key energy differences

If you imagine any difference re heat movement in a bath that *somehow* "STOPS" radiative forcing heat being absorbed then show it, articulate it, bring something to the table ?

Something from base Physics with evidence & integrity re Scientific Method - start by finding a fundamental paper on heat re its modes of transport; convective, conductive, radiative re exceptions, can you ?

Then & only then 'might' you have the basis of a point worthy of convergent dialectic

So far, this exercise with you appears a 1-way street as you raise odd fringe critique from a missed Physics base :/

TBC
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2016
Continued @dustywells

NOT about persuasion, its clear you've drawn this out oddly picking at feeble points which have nil depth of Physics appreciation, you appear to not want to learn !

I've impression you also missed high school sry - thats a huge problem as being conversant with Math - especially Calculus in last yr high school is essential to understand heat - especially re *Integration* & in terms of rates of change you need *Differentiation* such as 1st & 2nd derivatives.

To actually help you AND readers also observing these posts its imperative you get a base understanding of Statistical Mechanics first & not that hard - its about summing kinetic energy re molecular motions

When you've handle on Statistical Mechanics & understood clearly re heat/energy then & only then read up on Radiative Forcing, it should make sense

Its not dumb to not know things, it IS dumb to refuse to learn basics so you can independently understand, so apply yourself please

TBC
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2016
Mike, I recognize your frustration and before you put me on ignore let me express my sincere gratitude for the time, effort, patience, civility, and restraint you have generously directed towards me. With your guidance I have studied a number of things and I even understand most of them to some degree. When I ask an apparently asinine question or point to contradictory statements it's simply a request for more information to fill a gap or a conflict in my understanding of the topic at hand. Please don't take it as a personal attack or insult.

TBC
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2016
@Mike

However, I do find your heavy reliance on mathematics to unnecessarily complicate the matter. With the exception of trolls, the average person whom the cabal is so quick to label as a denier probably has even less education than I have and needs to have explanations that an eight year old can understand and accept. To point at complex interdependent formulae is to tell us that we are too stupid to understand and to leave the topic to the big boys. In today's political climate that approach generates distrust and conspiracy accusations.

TBC
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2016
@dustywells
I haven't thrust calculus formulae @ you & complained you haven't derived them nor claimed there was something wrong with your intellect for not knowing them off the bat. Please see my last post - physics is the key & math as it happens is only a descriptive aspect but, it is immensely powerful as even a little algebra can easily show

NB
Statistical Mechanics is at core re AGW & as I suggested earlier drop into local uni & get engaged, not doing so & diverging re making claims of conspiracy as some do IS dumb & fraught with psychological problems.

Whats frustrating is you move from one thing to another without getting to the nub of a core issue & use language like "might be persuaded"

Students at schools/unis are never persuaded, they master Physics & experiment, I strongly suggest do an online course in mechanics to get to grips with motion & straightforward algebra - that will enable you to observe depth in all movements then Statistical Mechanics...
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2016
@Mike

How hard is it to explain radiative forcing, or enthalpy, or psychrometry in layman's language and then point to wikipedia or a recognized science site for a more scientific discussion to support your statements?

My goal is to understand well enough, and without the need for math, to correctly explain to that eight year old why weather and climate behave the way they do and ultimately how much influence human activity has on climate change.

With reference to other threads, it becomes a significant and frustrating distraction to face demands for proof of "my position" and to provide references when I ask for clarification of some point or disagree with an absurd statement. Such demands have, for the most part, been refreshingly absent in this discussion with you, Mike. Thank you.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2016
...mathematics to unnecessarily complicate the matter
@dusty
if i may interject: it actually clarifies the matter because it is specific and it doesn't rely upon semantics, interpretations, motive or twisted logic
My goal is to understand well enough...to correctly explain to that eight year old ...
1- easier said than done

2- there are sites that do similar breakdowns, like this one: http://skepticalscience.com/

not only will you get science, but they will break it down & there are references you can check to validate the claim

you can "start" at those type places and then follow the evidence (recommended)

the evidence and the science is still the key, and that is what the problem with explaining it is: most people are like 8 y/o's and STEM is hard

you can't talk CO2 without talking about WV, as i showed you elsewhere... the why is technical (as mm showed)
how do you explain it?
it's hard
but you learn so much as you go, eh?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2016
@dusty cont'd
How hard is it to explain radiative forcing, or enthalpy, or psychrometry in layman's language
much harder than you think... it takes a special type person or personality as well as lots of really hard work.

a great communicator of this type information is: Thermodynamics

i am hoping to hear more from him in the future WRT climate science, so keep your eyes peeled and watch his profile for posts (read the historical posts too... he's made some great explanatory posts to alche and others)

STEM is hard for most people, so they dont' get into details
now even though you can start at places like SS (above), i also suggest keeping your overall reliance on the Science, journals and evidence itself... not on the opinions of anyone in any blog

the why is simple:
an article or blog is simply the opinion of the author, and there is no guarantee that they understand anything
the evidence, however, simply "is" - it has no motive or agenda

PEACE
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2016
@dustywells,
Before going on re your Q's take a breath, consider who's responsibility it is to get an education before making sporadic claims ?

So far generally, you've appear as someone who's already established "belief" then picks at edges re some aim to obfuscate, sadly that mindset may not be your own but, malleable to the irrational/uneducated propaganda pushed by some with flakey/immature motives

I've already set Radiative Forcing ground & despite Captain Stumpy oddly muddying the waters (as he didn't help elsewhere at all) he Should also know by now basics as he's read my posts for approx 2 years, yet still (as I've browsed other threads you're on) has combative ego with most (& me) as a pattern of putting people down worth more to him than key Physics education/direction

Consider "convergent dialectic" if D argued go down to C, get common base, learn logic to go back to D but, if C argued go down to B etc

Afresh the core is my post of Sep 13, 1 & 2

TBC
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2016
Continued @dustywells
There's no imperative anyone need reply/educate, I intimated primarily your responsibility

Note, if you are not here to mess about as many others have then you may be sincere

Therefore I'm ok exploring means to distill several years Physics to key issues so you can also protect yourself from (primarily emotive) bad propaganda obfuscating & appealing to low order over-simplified bad thinking which isn't humans best method of garnering truth ie not any sort of mature ethic but, a waste of time helping no-one.

By all means look up other user nick here "thermodynamics" (TH) yet, misplaced & odd Captain Stumpy didnt offer examples of his best pertinent posts, never mind

TH understandably tends to want to lean to higher level issues as he's been at it all before (bored?) with little thanks or even others basic understanding from many - even from both sides of the imaginary AGW "side"
https://sciencex....s/?v=act

TBC
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2016
Continued @dustywells

Please take this step by step, focus & not get distracted with others egos & mess approaches

FWIW: Radiative Forcing (RdF) is far easier than most imagine !

Helps to have a fresh mindset re light/energy, I'll see if its possible to approach this with minimal maths - though some arithmetic & algebra might help later

Recall my post here Sep 13, 2016
1 Everything moves all the time
2 Atoms absorb/radiate light whenever there's energy differential

These two tenets absolutely at Core of most Physics though can go far deeper re fundamental issues of measurement in Quantum Mechanics but, that's not needed re RdF at this point

I suggest thinking on 1 & 2 in their relation to each other

ie Nothing stands still, light everywhere & all frequencies all the time as pure energy. All btw very easy to test & always so far fully confirmed as a true key foundation

Explore
http://cbc.arizon.../sim/gh/

Over to you, ask any relevant Q's ?
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2016
FWIW: Radiative Forcing (RdF) is far easier than most imagine !
Thank you for stating that. I kept returning to the explanation looking for something hard to follow but always came to the same result that rf is balanced when energy exiting a surface/body is equal to the radiant energy entering a surface/body. Therefore the forcing may be positive or negative.
Recall my post here Sep 13, 2016
1 Everything moves all the time
2 Atoms absorb/radiate light whenever there's energy differential
Re: #2 There isn't a switch that determines whether an atom absorbs or radiates at a given time, so shouldn't that be "Atoms absorb/radiate light always and simultaneously while trying to reach/maintain a balance."
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2016
1. Imagine basket ball sitting on a table & a single gas molecule at center
2. Horizontally cut the ball in half with a molecule thick knife all the way through
3. This knife, as it cuts, disturbs the gas molecule with vibrational energy (same as a collision or IR)

a. Surely its clear lower half of the ball (~50%) is below the cut whilst upper half (~50%) is above the cut.
b. A very tiny line if neither above or below - it is minuscule & can be considered binary later ie up/down
In this example, using a single atom, the illustration seems adequate. However, a single atom should not be considered as representative of an atmospheric column where gravity causes density and pressure differences.
TBC
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2016

I did not mean to question whether an atom or molecule radiates when you said
the CO2 blanket layers reflect Infra Red (IR) at all altitudes probabilistically 50% up & 50% down
but I did question (poorly) the stated amount redirected downward as opposed to the amount that escapes. Since, as there are fewer atoms above to absorb the radiated IR, less than 50% of atmospheric IR would be returned to the surface. This discrepancy would become quite significant when considering that the return path to the surface may consist of a huge nummber of absorb/radiate steps where each step has a more than 50% chance of escape.

Again, it is not a question of whether IR is reflected, but a question of how much.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2016
@dustywells
Please take it step by step, your linguistive pattern more diverse than useful here, focus more first on link I offered, learn about that first in terms of; vibrational states, oscillating modes, spectra.

NB: There are *huge* regions of empty space between atoms in air even at 1 bar

dustywells states (Q1)
There isn't a switch that determines whether an atom absorbs or radiates at a given time
Wrong see A1

dustywells asks
.. shouldn't that be "Atoms absorb/radiate light always and simultaneously while trying to reach/maintain a balance."
No, your responses show signs of arguing propaganda influence, pls review provenance

Pls stop making uneducated claims - otherwise you *will* get heckles up of those that interpret you as an arguer not a casual student of Physics

Pls number your Q's so you can keep track, it improves your skill in dialectic

A1
A (resonant) quanta - some light goes through, some bounces off ie scattered, some absorbed.
dustywells
not rated yet Oct 07, 2016
Post 1:
Pls number your Q's so you can keep track, it improves your skill in dialectic
Comment 1: An excellent suggestion. I will endeavor to do that.
NB: There are *huge* regions of empty space between atoms in air even at 1 bar
Comment 2: Agreed.
Question 1: However, is it not true that the empty regions become progressively "huger" as pressure decreases with altitude?
Comment 3: If this is wrong, then my understanding of atmospheric physics is of such immense difference from yours that this conversation is beyond my comprehension.
dustywells
not rated yet Oct 07, 2016
Post 2:
Please take it step by step, your linguistive pattern more diverse than useful here, ...
No, your responses show signs of arguing propaganda influence...
Pls stop making uneducated claims
Comment 1: I am participating in this conversation to learn if/where my understanding of atmosphere/weather/climate/AGW is incorrect. If I make uneducated claims it only shows that we have found one of those points.

Comment 2: Just because it may be propaganda does not make it false. Let's rely on physics to winnow out the false claims.

Question 1: What do you mean by "linguistive pattern?"

Question 2: Can we please stick to physics of atmosphere/weather/climate/AGW and not resort to speculation about personality?
pongobongo
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2016
@ Mike Massen. Are you actually hoping that anyone is going to take you seriously when you say things like these?

pushed by some with flakey/immature motives
Begs the question: Why do you do it?

despite Captain Stumpy oddly muddying the waters
As opposed to your clear and concise presentations? You don't think what you write is "odd"? It is. It is very odd.

has combative ego with most
That is you to perfection. You work insults into every post you make.

a pattern of putting people down worth more to him than key Physics education/direction
Beyond a doubt that is another perfect description of you.

your linguistive pattern more diverse than useful here
Do you really think you are the person who should be pointing that out? wduckss and yourself are the two persons who post here who should leave that one alone. Mike Massen finds fault in someone's "linguistive pattern". "Linguistive" is not even a word.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy oddly muddying the waters (as he didn't help elsewhere at all)
really mikey?
i actually attempted to get dusty to pay attention to your arguments and you say i am "Muddying the waters"??
pongobongo is right about you

tell me mikey: where did you learn about "linguistive pattern"??
was it in your physics textbook?

that is the reason people get confused when you start posting: you make sh*t up and then state it's clear, or technical
the word is "linguistics" : https://en.wikipe...guistics

the term is "linguistic patterns": http://kottke.org...patterns

and a linguistic pattern is simply the utilisation of a dialect in a region that is typical, depending on the interdisciplinary field using the term (like using hoagie vrs sub for long sandwiches)

this is why i told Dusty that Thermo is a better communicator - he wouldn't f*ck up a basic term like that and confuse the issue with the OT digression
dustywells
5 / 5 (1) Oct 08, 2016
Post 3
@Mike
Comment 1: In trying to reconcile your answers and directions for study, it has become apparent to me that you are applying quantum mechanics and results of controlled lab experiments related to single atoms and photons while I am trying to understand the atmospheric conditions that involve movements of large amounts of energy and certain criteria whose cumulative effects seem to overlay and supersede the expectations that are based primarily on the behavior of individual atoms and photons.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2016
Ah, finally I get notifications !
Evidently pongobongo (Pee) & Captain Stumpy (CSt) following me around - nothing useful to help you at all - utter failures !

Nil value, no physics, no rationalised/connected interpretations, nil science at even the most basic level a very poor show - both negligible capacities ugh :/

Pee can only bark facile useless complaint, nil Physics

CSt failed in the other thread barking re evidence & muddies the waters here trying to impress on you its hard, obviously for him !

Sad, hes been on long enough to have read my posts re radiative transfer but learned Squat :/

Neither offering lucidity/interpretation etc re Physics we end up with Pee & CSt (sounds like ?)

Both referred to minutiae re my comment "..linguistive pattern..", well doh it should have read "linguistically selective pattern" a new tablet, swipe to post messed up, sorry

Elaborating, some make statements, if not refuted - end up believing them = not science

tbc

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2016
Cont @dustywells
So if you're attached to your odd statements minus key connection with basic Physics & Math you will always be at risk of leading yourself astray, misinterpreting & over-simplifying. Unfortunately the way you write has that pattern - this makes it hard for you as you throw in odd assertions which result in frustration as you mix up issues in Physics addressed > 100yrs ago re basic principles.

If you really want to learn essential substantive truths which are evidentiary in the truest empirical sense with immense provenance then it really is helpful you observe your patterns of language which only jibe as if saying what you think establishes what you know - Science doesn't work like that !

So many decades ago the principles of dialectic re Science & Physics & their principles addressed that & allowed key practical progress - backed by solid evidence - not mere observation & in concert with simple arithmetic as a start.

You there, continue yes/no ?
pongobongo
4 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2016
Neither offering lucidity
But you do? You write like you are having a bad experience with hallucinogens.

the way you write has that pattern
Can you not see the absurd irony that you tell someone that?

it really is helpful you observe your patterns of language
Why should he when you refuse to do it? You try it.

[
the principles of dialectic
Are no good at all unless you apply the principles of a common language.You use the most uncommon language of anyone on this site. DavidW is more lucid than you. Zephyr is more lucid than you. Even duckss is more lucid than you.

You there, continue yes/no ?
Please do, it is quite the spectacle.

It's not that I can;t contribute on things physics. It's that you must, in every post you make, criticize in others the very things you do more often and with greater degree. You are an offensive boor, and usually that is a very good indication that the person is posing and posturing (or has some pathology)
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2016
pongobongo (Pee/Pong) claims
..not that I can;t contribute on things physics
Of course you can't !

You've *never* offered physics or prove it ? Now unraveling, focused on persona, you've nothing & proven you *can't* ever help dustywells :/

See all your posts, facile barking feeble complaints & prejudice, ugh
https://sciencex....o/?v=act

Focus on Physics/Math - do intro re calculus on radiative transfer in terms useful to inform here - can you do that, can't you try even a bit ?

Pong claims
You are an offensive boor, and usually that is a very good indication that the person is posing and posturing (or has some pathology)
Why care or focus on me ? Your OCD with facile prejudice, try Physics ?

Try articulate Physics for dustywells, weave statistical mechanics re molecular motions into radiative transfer, can you ?

Eg Start with math of molecular CO2 layer & multiply by column length, can you ?

Your nick a clown yeah ?

:-)
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2016
dustywells wrote
Post 3
@Mike
Comment 1: In trying to reconcile your answers and directions for study, it has become apparent to me that you are applying quantum mechanics and results of controlled lab experiments related to single atoms and photons while I am trying to understand the atmospheric conditions that involve movements of large amounts of energy and certain criteria whose cumulative effects seem to overlay and supersede the expectations that are based primarily on the behavior of individual atoms and photons
Atmospheric movements subject to chaos & equilibria but, its based on heat ie the sum of the energies & its simple arithmetic addition of individual atoms & photons (electromagnetic radiation).

If that cannot be accepted by you then you come across as challenging arithmetic at most fundamental or imply there's a major change of the individual interactions of atoms/photons *because* they sum together...

Can you clarify that position please ?
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2016
dustywells askes
Question 1: However, is it not true that the empty regions become progressively "huger" as pressure decreases with altitude?
Of course, correct.

Whole paradigm of "atmospherics" all based on; simple gas laws, simple thermal interactions ie Conductive, Convective & Radiative, simple collision mechanics, simple energy conservation etc

All these studied in immense depth over > 100+ yrs, so far not even One has ever been showed wrong despite the best attempts of those wishing to make a name for themselves such as exploit huge commercial opportunities re engine formats, chem eng production processes & the like.

Addressing climate issue by way of comparative illustration

Petrol/Diesel engine chambers immense chaotic gas motions yet each piston cycle highly predictable ! ie Very smooth power control & over very wide ranges

Arises from the physics of Statistical Mechanics & Calculus such as Integration, climate very same paradigm re analysis

TBC

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

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