Can the atmosphere really warm? Atmospheric gas retention.

[donald]

For those interested in updated scientific information, there is a new report out "State of the Climate in 2013". Authored by 425 scientists in 57 countries. Here is where you can find the full report, etc:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140717_stateoftheclimate.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In clicking the link to the report:

"You have chosen to proceed to a non-government website for additional information. NOAA and the U.S. Department of Commerce do not endorse this website or the information, products or services contained therein."

So, it's nothing to do with NOAA. Why not link to the actual wed site? Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with the AMS.

 

[WetEV]

Is that anywhere near correct?

No.

You asked me to show you my calculations. So now you show yours to the contrary.

Someone unwilling to learn isn't useful to teach. You really want to learn? Then follow up on the topic. I'm sure that someplace there are real measurements of CO2 solubility in sea water... first done before I was born, and I'm an old f*rt. And the Suess effect allows for global measurements of carbon flow into the oceans. Either measurement trumps any calculations you or I might make.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At minimum, read all of the following that relates to the topic you want to discuss.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh, and again, spend some quality time with this.

http://scholar.google.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Topics to search for include CO2 isotopic variations, ocean CO2 trends... I'm sure you can think of more.

 

[donald]

Someone unwilling to learn isn't useful to teach. You really want to learn? Then follow up on the topic.

No , no, no... you have got this all screwed up. YOU people are saying this stuff exists, then when I go look I can't find it and YOU then tell me that you don't know where it is and that's my fault.

If you haven't seen it before yourself then don't claim it exists. If you know where it is then it's for you to show it, if your claims depend on it.

Just like any published paper, then give references.

As I have clarified, the chemistry of CO2 in seawater is very complicated, and is more than just a quantity in a given volume. I KNOW that because I WENT looking for it before posting. HENCE why I said it was complicated and gave a first-degree approximation instead, which I doubt is too far from reality and generally sufficient to get a feel for the quantities involved.

YOU asked me for my calculation and I gave it. It is for YOU to say why it is not correct, not simply to say 'NO'. Yes, I agree, assuming a ppm of molar concentration is a coarse interpretation, if you know it is wrong by a large factor they either say that it is, and reference it, or say, 'well, I really don't know'.

You people would prefer to gnaw off your own knee caps than give a hint of anything that you have any doubts of that might conflict with what you THINK the 'consensus' is.

I'm done here, because whatever is put forward that you can't explain, you say someone else has done it, even though you've never seen it. Not a hint of self-doubt. Then you ask for me to back up something, I do, and then you simply say 'NO'.

As I said some time back, if that is the level of dialogue that 'the consensus' is also trying to use to persuade others of the issues, then it is not remotely surprising that a significant fraction resist what is being preached to them.

 

[WetEV]

Someone unwilling to learn isn't useful to teach. You really want to learn? Then follow up on the topic.

No , no, no... you have got this all screwed up.

No I don't. You don't follow up on topics. It is very clear that you don't want to learn, you are pushing an agenda.

As I have clarified, the chemistry of CO2 in seawater is very complicated, and is more than just a quantity in a given volume. I KNOW that because I WENT looking for it before posting. HENCE why I said it was complicated and gave a first-degree approximation instead, which I doubt is too far from reality and generally sufficient to get a feel for the quantities involved.

Your "first order approximation" isn't correct to the first order. Reading any good textbook on physical oceanography would have be a good start. I've got one question for you, why did you not start with a good textbook or three?

For amusement...

Sverdrup, Harald Ulrik, et al. (1942). The Oceans, Their Physics, Chemistry, and General Biology. New York: Prentice-Hall. Page 192 might be a good place to start.

The first valid actual measurements seem to have first made in 1929. Have fun, might have to get to a good library to get a paper copy off a dusty shelf. The best paper to read might be this one:

BUCH, K., 1939: Beobachtungen iiber das Kohlensauregleichgewicht und iiber den Kohlensaureaustausch zwischen Atmosphire und Meer im Nordatlantischen Ozean. Acta Acad. Abo. Math. et Phys. 11 (9).

Warning, this comes from an OCR'd document, and typos are common in the text from such documents.

 

[RegGuheert]

Climatologist Katharine Hayhoe debunks the cooling myth

https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/488926499135713281" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She hasn't debunked anything. To provide a plot of GISS data without looking carefully at the massive amount of data-fiddling they have been doing is disingenuous, IMO. Just for reference, have a look at a comparison between GISS global temperatures and RSS temperatures over the same period (these curves are 60-month averaged):

So, which one is right? All attempts to determine global mean temperature have their problems. As I've covered in the past, the land-based records to not match up well with historical records, mainly because of adjustments in the past two decades. The satellite records, OTOH, cover *most* of the planet quite thoroughly and all adjustments made are made to the full dataset. Still, RSS runs a bit cooler than UAH.

Simply put: The Ministry of Truth has been hard at work "correcting" the GISS dataset.

 

[Stoaty]

Donald, if you want to learn something about the ocean and climate, try pages S73-S80 of "State of the Climate in 2013":

http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/bams-state-of-the-climate-2013/?utm_source=pr&utm_medium=pcon&&utm_campaign=stateofclimate2013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Stoaty]

Simply put: The Ministry of Truth has been hard at work "correcting" the GISS dataset.

Reg, can you give us the reference of where this research was published in a peer reviewed journal?

 

[RegGuheert]

Here is a recent paper which looked at 258 historical proxy datasets that strongly rebuts the "hockey stick" hypothesis:

In fact, single break points in no case detect structural change at or around RWP dates, while less than 10% of the highest peak dates of the CCP series enter the 20th century. Rather, temperature breaks and peaks are centered within the Middle Ages so that, given the large geographical scope covered by the available data, we may conclude that the MWP was a global phenomenon significantly warmer than the RWP, as demonstrated also by the large amount of referenced authors.

Simply put, the body of scientific evidence we have today from the proxy records says that the Earth was warmer during the Medieval Warm than it is today.

 

[RegGuheert]

Reg, can you give us the reference of where this research was published in a peer reviewed journal?

You expect to find that kind of information in peer-reviewed journals?! :lol: :lol: :lol:

He provides clear references to the sources of his data.

 

[Stoaty]

Reg, can you give us the reference of where this research was published in a peer reviewed journal?

You expect to find that kind of information in peer-reviewed journals?! :lol: :lol: :lol:

My point exactly. Anyone can write anything and put it on the internet, passing peer review means it has been subjected to a more rigorous standard.

Edit: I retract my statement after realizing that those peer reviewers are part of the global conspiracy of climate scientists.

 

[Alric]

Climatologist Katharine Hayhoe debunks the cooling myth

https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/488926499135713281" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She hasn't debunked anything. To provide a plot of GISS data without looking carefully at the massive amount of data-fiddling they have been doing is disingenuous, IMO. Just for reference, have a look at a comparison between GISS global temperatures and RSS temperatures over the same period (these curves are 60-month averaged):

So, which one is right?

Your graph is probably showing stratospheric measurements which are supposed to cool. This is directly from RSS

http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature#Version%20Notes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[RegGuheert]

Your graph is probably showing stratospheric measurements which are supposed to cool.

Sorry it was not labeled. No, it is LTL, the exact data which you plotted, but filtered and plotted over the same range as the reference you gave.

As shown, the RSS LTL data over that period shows cooling.

 

[Alric]

Your graph is probably showing stratospheric measurements which are supposed to cool.

Sorry it was not labeled. No, it is LTL, the exact data which you plotted, but filtered and plotted over the same range as the reference you gave.

As shown, the RSS LTL data over that period shows cooling.

That's right there in figure 5 from RSS. Who came up with the opposite result with RSS's own data?

 

[RegGuheert]

That's right there in figure 5 from RSS. Who came up with the opposite result with RSS's own data?

It's not opposite. It's the same exact data. The slope is determined by the start and end points. The plot I provided uses the same start and end points that were in your plot "refuting" the idea that temperatures have been dropping during this century.

As I have said many, many times: the warming that is recorded occurred in the last two decades of the 20th century, but is not happening this century.

 

[Alric]

That's right there in figure 5 from RSS. Who came up with the opposite result with RSS's own data?

It's not opposite. It's the same exact data. The slope is determined by the start and end points. The plot I provided uses the same start and end points that were in your plot "refuting" the idea that temperatures have been dropping during this century.

As I have said many, many times: the warming that is recorded occurred in the last two decades of the 20th century, but is not happening this century.

Use your eyes. You can not get a downward trend even if you cherry pick 2000 to 2012.

 

[RegGuheert]

Use your eyes. You can not get a downward trend even if you cherry pick 2000 to 2012.

No need to use your eyes. Here are the exact trends over the period you plotted in the post I responded to:

From your source (GISS data from 1997 with trend):

From WoodForTrees.com (RSS LTL data from 1997 with trend):

Again, far from refuting anything, Katharine Hayhoe selected the most corrupted dataset which exists today to try to defend her position.

 

[Alric]

Use your eyes. You can not get a downward trend even if you cherry pick 2000 to 2012.

No need to use your eyes. Here are the exact trends over the period you plotted in the post I responded to.

I just don't understand what is the point of cherry picking so few years when you have a much larger data in RSS.

You must also ignore all other datasets!

It just looks like you found a dataset and timeframe that you like and ignore all the rest.

 

[WetEV]

Just for reference, have a look at (some blog)/giss-diverging-from-reality-at-a-phenomenal-rate a comparison between GISS global temperatures and RSS temperatures over the same period (these curves are 60-month averaged)

GISS is near surface temperature. RSS is microwave temperature over a range of altitudes, with all channels having a peak response thousands of feet into the sky. These are not the same thing. They will not show the same trend, short term or long term.

So, which one is right?

Both.

 

[RegGuheert]

Just for reference, have a look at (some blog)/giss-diverging-from-reality-at-a-phenomenal-rate a comparison between GISS global temperatures and RSS temperatures over the same period (these curves are 60-month averaged)

GISS is near surface temperature. RSS is microwave temperature over a range of altitudes, with all channels having a peak response thousands of feet into the sky. These are not the same thing. They will not show the same trend, short term or long term.

And what do the current crop of climate models predict for the lower troposphere for this period?

Unlike the downtrend we are currently experiencing, they predict an ALARMING rate of increase.

This hindcast from the current crop of climate models, predicted 0.6 degrees C MORE warming than the 0.1C that actually occurred since 1980.

So much for settled science.

So, which one is right?

Both.

Neither is correct. No measurement record is ever correct. The question in science always is how wrong are they.

 

[AndyH]

Haven't you guys figured out yet that Bill/Reg is simply a shill, a troll, and will continue to link-spam denial-sourced propaganda? This is straight out of the playbook - add confusion, add doubt, use legitimate sounding words even if they have no basis in reality?

By continuing to bat the ball back to him you keep adding energy and life to his efforts. The only way to stop a troll is to ignore it.

The last thing anything alive on this planet needs is for any of us - well meaning or not - to continue to feed the denial fire that's killing us.