Can the atmosphere really warm? Atmospheric gas retention.

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Stoaty said:
Those other scientists must have been napping when that happened. :eek: Reg, you really do have a soft spot for the under dog. ;)
klapauzius said:
That didnt really come as a surprise.
Lets stick with AGW.
Even Donald didnt want to touch this topic, which scores him some points in my book... :lol:
AndyH said:
Well, hell - not much of a parade with only one clown car.

As for you, Klap, I'll tell you the same thing I tell my cat when she drops a tailless newt on the living room floor: Don't play with your food. :lol:
Thanks for proving my point, guys!

Just like with CAGW, you guys parrot the consensus view without even looking at the evidence that I have provided. This is exactly what I expected from a bunch of posters who believe science is about consensus, not facts. It shows clearly that consensus science can and does go wrong. The fact that you guys cannot see past the consensus by actually looking at what the scientific literature says is just more evidence that following the consensus does not give you an answer to a scientific question.

I will say it again. If you have the evidence that cold fusion cannot and does not happen, please post it.
Stoaty said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LENR
What's funny about Stoaty posting this excerpt from Wikipedia is that Dr. Peter Hagelstein has captured the Wikipedia entries for cold fusion for the past few years. At the very beginning of the MIT 20-hour course he read them, verbatim, after saying "The place to start is Wikipedia, of course," After he read them he then mockingly excused the class. Then throughout the 20-hour course, as he shows the research findings through the last quarter century he occasionally mocks (in a nice way) what he had read at the beginning from Wikipedia. He explained that a cold-fusion researcher who had been maintaining the Wikipedia article was banned and the article was rewritten so that the consensus could be maintained.

Like you, the author of the Wikipedia article really hasn't looked closely at the science or the literature concerning cold fusion.
 
WetEV said:
So what if there is regional differences, especially on short time periods. Not interesting, as climate models are not reliable on short terms or for regional variability.

http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-700m.dat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We know from science that the oceans are warmed by sunlight, not downwelling infrared. The best that downwelling infrared could possibly do would be to slow the rate of cooling of the oceans. And we know that downwelling infrared is dominated by clouds and water vapor.

So please answer the following questions:

- What evidence do you offer that warming in the oceans is the result of increasing CO2 rather than reduced cloud cover (to allow more sunlight) or increases in the other, dominant greenhouse gases?

- What explanation and evidence to you offer to explain how the entire Pacific Ocean, which covers virtually half of the Earth, can avoid being warmed by the CO2 if that is the main cause?

- Why should anyone be concerned if the world's oceans increase in temperature by 0.01 degrees C in a decade? Or even 0.1 degrees C in a century?
 
RegGuheert said:
Just like with CAGW, you guys parrot the consensus view without even looking at the evidence that I have provided. This is exactly what I expected from a bunch of posters who believe science is about consensus, not facts.
Let's make this crystal clear for you, Bill. First, there is no consensus about "CAGW" because there is no such thing in the scientific community or in most of civil society called "CAGW". This is a slur invented by propagandists in the denial industry. What this means is that not only is there no science available to prove or disprove this, but there are no facts available from any source that are valid. While it might make you giggle to post a link to a non-source about a non-subject, it doesn't give you a weapon to use against anyone for any reason.

Case in point:
RegGuheert said:
We know from science that the oceans are warmed by sunlight, not downwelling infrared.
What we've known for a very, very long time is that energy is transferred through three mechanisms - convection, conduction, and radiation. We also know that energy moves from high to low (hotter to colder). If you have any functioning brain cells and any desire to be honest, you'll be able to parse these high-school physics facts and see just how wrong your quoted statement is. I'm not holding my breath for this, either.

Troll.
 
klapauzius said:
Did you try google scholar?
There are dozens of papers showing world maps of temperature change. Just google "mean global temperature map".
I mean... is there data like Reg's that, over time, show temperature changes at a given spot where temps have risen?
 
I don't think we've bottomed out the discussion on situations where the consensus is wrong, yet. Not by a long way.

OK, so if plate tectonics is not a good example because there was 'a scientific discussion' going on, who was participating in a scientific discussion about peptic ulcers after Lykoudis had been treating patients with antibiotics for decades before Warren and Marshall rediscovered that fact, leading to Marshall drinking the causal bacteria to prove it.

Yeah, that scientific discussion was so thorough, it lead to a researcher having to experiment on himself to prove it! They got a Nobel prize out of it though.
 
donald said:
klapauzius said:
Did you try google scholar?
There are dozens of papers showing world maps of temperature change. Just google "mean global temperature map".
I mean... is there data like Reg's that, over time, show temperature changes at a given spot where temps have risen?

Yes. Everything is in that report. Read it, its more comprehensive than anything we could tell you here.
 
donald said:
I don't think we've bottomed out the discussion on situations where the consensus is wrong, yet. Not by a long way.

OK, so if plate tectonics is not a good example because there was 'a scientific discussion' going on, who was participating in a scientific discussion about peptic ulcers after Lykoudis had been treating patients with antibiotics for decades before Warren and Marshall rediscovered that fact, leading to Marshall drinking the causal bacteria to prove it.

Yeah, that scientific discussion was so thorough, it lead to a researcher having to experiment on himself to prove it! They got a Nobel prize out of it though.

Very well, show me that simple experiment to disprove AGW. Even better, do it, publish it, get the nobel prize.
 
RegGuheert said:
Just like with CAGW, you guys parrot the consensus view without even looking at the evidence that I have provided. This is exactly what I expected from a bunch of posters who believe science is about consensus, not facts. It shows clearly that consensus science can and does go wrong. The fact that you guys cannot see past the consensus by actually looking at what the scientific literature says is just more evidence that following the consensus does not give you an answer to a scientific question.

Hmm...if you put yourself in our shoes, you will find that we could say the same about you.
 
klapauzius said:
Very well, show me that simple experiment to disprove AGW. Even better, do it, publish it, get the nobel prize.
But that's exactly the problem with AGW as a 'scientific' theory. There are no experiments to disprove it. It is untestable. That's exactly why a lot of folks have an issue with it.

This is an AGW skeptic's question to an AGW believer. If I am 'the sceptic', as has been suggested, then you've got that question the wrong way around.
 
RegGuheert said:
Just like with CAGW, you guys parrot the consensus view without even looking at the evidence that I have provided. This is exactly what I expected from a bunch of posters who believe science is about consensus, not facts. It shows clearly that consensus science can and does go wrong. The fact that you guys cannot see past the consensus by actually looking at what the scientific literature says is just more evidence that following the consensus does not give you an answer to a scientific question.
Reg, you are not qualified to evaluate the evidence if you parrot the claim that "no warming has occurred for X number of years". It shows that you don't know the difference between weather and climate. You can't just pick a year and start your counting, there is too much noise (weather) in the data. Climate is an average that extends over 15-30 years. So even the decade scale we were looking at is too short a time period (but even this shorter time period showed unequivocal evidence that the earth is still warming).

I do not hold myself as qualified to evaluate the evidence either, it ultimately comes down to whether you trust the scientists who study climate change. The people who study the field have PhD level training and have spent years working on this. The idea that you, or one of the denier sources you frequent that doesn't have expertise can easily point out a major flaw is absolutely ridiculous. In the end, it comes down to whether you believe there is a worldwide conspiracy (sounds like that is your position) or whether the fact that scientists in a very large number of countries can sign off on an IPCC report is sufficient.

PS Climate change denial is a uniquely American (political) phenomenon. It doesn't have much of a following in the rest of the world (Australia may be an exception).
 
donald said:
klapauzius said:
Very well, show me that simple experiment to disprove AGW. Even better, do it, publish it, get the nobel prize.
But that's exactly the problem with AGW as a 'scientific' theory. There are no experiments to disprove it. It is untestable. That's exactly why a lot of folks have an issue with it.

This is an AGW skeptic's question to an AGW believer. If I am 'the sceptic', as has been suggested, then you've got that question the wrong way around.
Just a few posts ago I pointed you to a paper, published in Nature, that shows a causal relationship between Co2 concentration and global temperature in the past.
If there wasn't such a relationship AGW could not exist.

AGW is testable, it has been tested many times. We have given you ample information on scientific literature.
It seems you didn't read any of it?
Yet you keep asking questions?
 
donald said:
klapauzius said:
Did you try google scholar?
There are dozens of papers showing world maps of temperature change. Just google "mean global temperature map".
I mean... is there data like Reg's that, over time, show temperature changes at a given spot where temps have risen?

Sure. Easy. I used to live here.

fortcollins.jpg


For the USA as a whole, about twice as many high records as low records recently. Fairly easy to find one. In Washington State, start at A:

Clearly warming overall, and on the record low side, not on the record high side.
broker


Basically boring, however, as many local factors can impact such records. Nationally, this gets slightly more interesting (Reg's source, follow this link: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/climate/temp/us_recordtemps/dayrec.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

Changes through time in record high and low temperatures (extremes) are also an important manifestation of climate change (Sect. 3.8 in Trenberth et al. 2007; Peterson et al. 2008; Peterson et al. 2012). Meehl et al. (2009) found that currently, about twice as many high temperature records are being set as low temperature records over the conterminous U.S. (lower 48 states) as a whole. As the climate warms further, this ratio is expected to multiply, mainly because when the whole temperature distribution for a location or region shifts, it changes the "tails" of the distribution (in the case of warming this means fewer extreme cold temperatures and more extreme hot temperatures; see Page 2, Figure ES.1 of Karl et al. 2008). The Meehl et al. (2009) findings were covered pretty well by the online media, but, as is the case for all types of scientifc studies, it's safe to say that most of the public are not aware of these basic findings, and they would benefit from additional ways to get climate extremes information for their own areas and assess it. One such way is the National Climatic Data Center's (NCDC) U.S. Records Look-Up page.

However, this is still just a small fraction of the Earth's climate system. A day, month or year with more record lows than record highs for 1% of the surface after a substantial warming doesn't contradict climate physics. I'd be more surprised if there wasn't 1% of stations cooling while the global climate warmed by 3C.
 
RegGuheert said:
- Why should anyone be concerned if the world's oceans increase in temperature by 0.01 degrees C in a decade? Or even 0.1 degrees C in a century?

http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_mt/T-dC-w0-100m.dat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like the sea surface temperature has risen by about 0.4C over about 60 years.
 
WetEV said:
RegGuheert said:
- Why should anyone be concerned if the world's oceans increase in temperature by 0.01 degrees C in a decade? Or even 0.1 degrees C in a century?

http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_mt/T-dC-w0-100m.dat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like the sea surface temperature has risen by about 0.4C over about 60 years.
Wet - I realize Bill's continually trying to keep control of the conversation by asking variations of the same questions while refusing to benefit from previous answers, but you also seem to be playing into his hand by not answering questions. If he asks a question with a factual error, absolutely fix the error if you can, but answer the question as well. Or at least acknowledge it.

Bill - the planet's systems of systems are in a precarious balance. No single aspect is in isolation; changes in one factor affect the others. Biochemistry is affected by temperature. The carbon cycle is affected by temperature. The food web in the oceans is affected by temperature. Sea urchins cannot reproduce when the temperature rises above or falls below a very narrow range. The optimum temperature must be where they are physically and when they are ready. When one element of the food web is impaired or extinct, it harms the rest of the web. This can ultimately cause a collapse of the entire ecosystem. This is the part of the planet that manufactures most of our oxygen, a large portion of our protein (and a disproportionate percentage of both livelihood and protein for the portion of humanity on the lower economic levels). As with overall climate, the average temperature is not a factor - the average temperature is made up of all the local temperatures in all the billions of locations and microclimates. Some of those areas are already incapable of supporting the life that is normally found there - and that's removing food sources from land-based life that relies on that sea life. It's very much a domino effect - change one piece and the result ripples out to touch every other lifeform on the planet.

If you eat fish or breathe oxygen, Bill, you should be damn concerned if the world's oceans increase in temperature by ANY amount at ANY rate.

PS - ever had a fever of 99°F? Nothing about that feels good to our human body system of systems, does it? That's only a 0.3°F (0.2°C) difference...
 
Hottest March-June on record globally:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/15/3460555/hottest-march-june-jma/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still warming after all these years.
 
Stoaty said:
Hottest March-June on record globally:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/15/3460555/hottest-march-june-jma/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still warming after all these years.

That curve must have been forged by the global conspiracy...all the smart people know its cooling!!!

And such a cheap trick they use. Just reverse the dates and you get the real temperature curve.
 
AndyH said:
Case in point:
RegGuheert said:
We know from science that the oceans are warmed by sunlight, not downwelling infrared.
What we've known for a very, very long time is that energy is transferred through three mechanisms - convection, conduction, and radiation. We also know that energy moves from high to low (hotter to colder).
Downwelling infrared does NOT warm the oceans. Sunlight does that. Anyone who claims otherwise really needs to learn a lot more about the physics.
 
Stoaty said:
I do not hold myself as qualified to evaluate the evidence either, it ultimately comes down to whether you trust the scientists who study climate change. The people who study the field have PhD level training and have spent years working on this. The idea that you, or one of the denier sources you frequent that doesn't have expertise can easily point out a major flaw is absolutely ridiculous. In the end, it comes down to whether you believe there is a worldwide conspiracy (sounds like that is your position) or whether the fact that scientists in a very large number of countries can sign off on an IPCC report is sufficient.
The authorities you trust so well have been wrong for DECADES. Even the IPCC has given up on predicting doom. It's simply not in the latest report.
Stoaty said:
PS Climate change denial is a uniquely American (political) phenomenon. It doesn't have much of a following in the rest of the world (Australia may be an exception).
I do not know anyone who claims that climate does not change. Do you? The point is that there is nothing unusual about the recent change in the climate and it has been much less severe than the most recent occurrence of warming that occurred in the 1930s. In that case, there were higher temperatures and actual SEVERE problems the world over. You can deny the history, but it is all well-recorded. If you are unable to see past the replacement of temperature data from thermometers with proxy data based on tree rings, that is your issue, not mine.

What is not happening is the world is not warming this century. And NONE of the predicted disasters are happening. In fact, many of the data show things moving in the OPPOSITE direction of the predictions. And the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere has had strong benefits for agriculture.

In case anyone missed it before, here is the current state-of-the-planet:

- CO2 concentration is rising at an ever-increasing rate
- Global temperature is NOT rising
- U.S. temperature is NOT rising
- Global diurnal temperature range moves in the same direction as global temperature, which implies that the GHE moves in the OPPOSITE direction as global temperature
- Global cyclone frequency, intensity and damage is NOT increasing
- U.S. is now in the largest drought of major hurricane strikes in recorded history
- Tornadoes have not increased in intensity or frequency in a long time
- The proportion of the world in droughts of all levels of severity are gradually dropping
- The world is getting greener
- Food production achieves all-time record highs nearly every year
- Two weeks ago Antarctica had the highest area of sea ice in the satellite instrument record
- Sea ice in the Arctic stopped its decline a few years ago

Again, I ask: what is scary about any of this?

OTOH, where you live in CA very dire circumstances may be on their way. History tells us that centuries-long severe droughts have occurred in the not-so-distant past. If you are about to be revisited by one of these massive droughts, then things could get quite difficult there.

The weather map in the image below is the key take-away from that article:

76558_990x742-cb1392242107.jpg


BTW, that high-pressure system in the North Pacific is not only the main cause of the drought in CA, but it is also the cause of the current spike in global sea-surface temperatures. While the rest of the world's oceans are flat or dropping in temperature, the North Pacific temperature is shooting up due to the unusually-cloud-free conditions that accompany that high-pressure system:

10-n-pac-ssta.png
 
RegGuheert said:
AndyH said:
Case in point:
RegGuheert said:
We know from science that the oceans are warmed by sunlight, not downwelling infrared.
What we've known for a very, very long time is that energy is transferred through three mechanisms - convection, conduction, and radiation. We also know that energy moves from high to low (hotter to colder).
Downwelling infrared does NOT warm the oceans. Sunlight does that. Anyone who claims otherwise really needs to learn a lot more about the physics.

This is a moot point and misleading at best.

Heat mostly flows from the ocean to the atmosphere, so reducing that heat flow from the oceans to the atmosphere warms the oceans. Not by adding heat, but by slowing the loss of heat.

Put on a coat. It reduces heat loss and you warm.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
RegGuheert said:
What is not happening is the world is not warming this century.
[Other denialist falsehoods snipped]
Reg, we have talked about this before, but clearly you haven't understood: weather involves short term fluctuations, climate is an average over a period of 15-30 years. I have presented the data showing that each decade has been hotter than the last globally. That means that the world is warming, it hasn't stopped. That's why we just had the hottest March-June on record globally. I can't make it any simpler than that. Your denial of the data and cherry picking some arbitrary point to count from means you either don't understand that random variations in temperature (weather) is not relevant to climate or you have an ulterior motive (probably political) for denying what is happening.
 
Back
Top