Remember me
▼ Content

Possible the IPCC corrupted data ?


Possible the IPCC corrupted data ?11-07-2017 19:59
James_
★★★☆☆
(508)
This link tends to show a cooling trend since warming peaked in 1998. 1998 is supposedly when the Global Warming Pause started. This is from the EPA which President Trump does not support. Also 1998 is about the same year that ozone depletion slowed as well.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

And this link is to comments by 2 scientists associated with the University of Washington. They say that there is a 40 - 70 year cycle where the oceans absorb and release heat which the IPCC is adding to global warming figures since 1998.
And this would be where the manipulating data comes into play. The IPCC states that the heat being transported to the bottom of the ocean needs to be included as if it is heat in our atmosphere. I think they need to show that this causes the surface temperature to rise which the first link shows is not happening.
And I think at the moment that this is the center of the debate.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/09/17/global-warming-hiatus-trashed-by-new-study/

>> The NOAA paper found many of the ocean buoys used to measure sea surface temperatures over the last few decades gave cooler readings than ships. <<

Yet they won't make know what specific ways the ships used and how they were not properly calibrated. And yet they can point to 1998 as the time that ships thermometers became unreliable.
What scientists do not know is how much heat can be transported by atmospheric gases. This is important because at night when gases are less excited, how much heat is stored as energy and how much is lost through entropy/heat emission ?
After all, if our days are warmer because of what we're doing, then if that heat can't be transported then it's lost to the cold of space at night. And this means any other "warming" factor such as drying up aquifers, etc. is something that can not be controlled by atmospheric gases but is controlled by other factors.
11-07-2017 21:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
James_ wrote:
This link tends to show a cooling trend since warming peaked in 1998. 1998 is supposedly when the Global Warming Pause started. This is from the EPA which President Trump does not support. Also 1998 is about the same year that ozone depletion slowed as well.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

And this link is to comments by 2 scientists associated with the University of Washington. They say that there is a 40 - 70 year cycle where the oceans absorb and release heat which the IPCC is adding to global warming figures since 1998.
And this would be where the manipulating data comes into play. The IPCC states that the heat being transported to the bottom of the ocean needs to be included as if it is heat in our atmosphere. I think they need to show that this causes the surface temperature to rise which the first link shows is not happening.
And I think at the moment that this is the center of the debate.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/09/17/global-warming-hiatus-trashed-by-new-study/

>> The NOAA paper found many of the ocean buoys used to measure sea surface temperatures over the last few decades gave cooler readings than ships. <<

Yet they won't make know what specific ways the ships used and how they were not properly calibrated. And yet they can point to 1998 as the time that ships thermometers became unreliable.
What scientists do not know is how much heat can be transported by atmospheric gases. This is important because at night when gases are less excited, how much heat is stored as energy and how much is lost through entropy/heat emission ?
After all, if our days are warmer because of what we're doing, then if that heat can't be transported then it's lost to the cold of space at night. And this means any other "warming" factor such as drying up aquifers, etc. is something that can not be controlled by atmospheric gases but is controlled by other factors.


It is not possible to store heat.

Warmer water tends to rise, just like warm air.

The Earth dissipates energy both day and night.

Shipborne thermometers are plenty accurate. They actually get checked for calibration more often than buoys do.

Buoy thermometers are checked only when the buoy is serviced, and only by comparison to the shipborne thermometer of the ship that is servicing it.

Calibration of both thermometers is done during manufacture. Checking them insures against instrument malfunction or drift.


The Parrot Killer
11-07-2017 23:43
Wake
★★★★★
(2102)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This link tends to show a cooling trend since warming peaked in 1998. 1998 is supposedly when the Global Warming Pause started. This is from the EPA which President Trump does not support. Also 1998 is about the same year that ozone depletion slowed as well.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

And this link is to comments by 2 scientists associated with the University of Washington. They say that there is a 40 - 70 year cycle where the oceans absorb and release heat which the IPCC is adding to global warming figures since 1998.
And this would be where the manipulating data comes into play. The IPCC states that the heat being transported to the bottom of the ocean needs to be included as if it is heat in our atmosphere. I think they need to show that this causes the surface temperature to rise which the first link shows is not happening.
And I think at the moment that this is the center of the debate.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/09/17/global-warming-hiatus-trashed-by-new-study/

>> The NOAA paper found many of the ocean buoys used to measure sea surface temperatures over the last few decades gave cooler readings than ships. <<

Yet they won't make know what specific ways the ships used and how they were not properly calibrated. And yet they can point to 1998 as the time that ships thermometers became unreliable.
What scientists do not know is how much heat can be transported by atmospheric gases. This is important because at night when gases are less excited, how much heat is stored as energy and how much is lost through entropy/heat emission ?
After all, if our days are warmer because of what we're doing, then if that heat can't be transported then it's lost to the cold of space at night. And this means any other "warming" factor such as drying up aquifers, etc. is something that can not be controlled by atmospheric gases but is controlled by other factors.


It is not possible to store heat.

Warmer water tends to rise, just like warm air.

The Earth dissipates energy both day and night.

Shipborne thermometers are plenty accurate. They actually get checked for calibration more often than buoys do.

Buoy thermometers are checked only when the buoy is serviced, and only by comparison to the shipborne thermometer of the ship that is servicing it.

Calibration of both thermometers is done during manufacture. Checking them insures against instrument malfunction or drift.


Hey dummy - what happens to an air mass when it rises? IS it your position that it gains heat?
12-07-2017 00:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This link tends to show a cooling trend since warming peaked in 1998. 1998 is supposedly when the Global Warming Pause started. This is from the EPA which President Trump does not support. Also 1998 is about the same year that ozone depletion slowed as well.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

And this link is to comments by 2 scientists associated with the University of Washington. They say that there is a 40 - 70 year cycle where the oceans absorb and release heat which the IPCC is adding to global warming figures since 1998.
And this would be where the manipulating data comes into play. The IPCC states that the heat being transported to the bottom of the ocean needs to be included as if it is heat in our atmosphere. I think they need to show that this causes the surface temperature to rise which the first link shows is not happening.
And I think at the moment that this is the center of the debate.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/09/17/global-warming-hiatus-trashed-by-new-study/

>> The NOAA paper found many of the ocean buoys used to measure sea surface temperatures over the last few decades gave cooler readings than ships. <<

Yet they won't make know what specific ways the ships used and how they were not properly calibrated. And yet they can point to 1998 as the time that ships thermometers became unreliable.
What scientists do not know is how much heat can be transported by atmospheric gases. This is important because at night when gases are less excited, how much heat is stored as energy and how much is lost through entropy/heat emission ?
After all, if our days are warmer because of what we're doing, then if that heat can't be transported then it's lost to the cold of space at night. And this means any other "warming" factor such as drying up aquifers, etc. is something that can not be controlled by atmospheric gases but is controlled by other factors.


It is not possible to store heat.

Warmer water tends to rise, just like warm air.

The Earth dissipates energy both day and night.

Shipborne thermometers are plenty accurate. They actually get checked for calibration more often than buoys do.

Buoy thermometers are checked only when the buoy is serviced, and only by comparison to the shipborne thermometer of the ship that is servicing it.

Calibration of both thermometers is done during manufacture. Checking them insures against instrument malfunction or drift.


Hey dummy - what happens to an air mass when it rises? IS it your position that it gains heat?


It cools.As long as it is warmer than the surrounding air, it will continue to rise.

It is not possible to trap heat.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-07-2017 00:39
12-07-2017 16:12
Wake
★★★★★
(2102)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This link tends to show a cooling trend since warming peaked in 1998. 1998 is supposedly when the Global Warming Pause started. This is from the EPA which President Trump does not support. Also 1998 is about the same year that ozone depletion slowed as well.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

And this link is to comments by 2 scientists associated with the University of Washington. They say that there is a 40 - 70 year cycle where the oceans absorb and release heat which the IPCC is adding to global warming figures since 1998.
And this would be where the manipulating data comes into play. The IPCC states that the heat being transported to the bottom of the ocean needs to be included as if it is heat in our atmosphere. I think they need to show that this causes the surface temperature to rise which the first link shows is not happening.
And I think at the moment that this is the center of the debate.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/09/17/global-warming-hiatus-trashed-by-new-study/

>> The NOAA paper found many of the ocean buoys used to measure sea surface temperatures over the last few decades gave cooler readings than ships. <<

Yet they won't make know what specific ways the ships used and how they were not properly calibrated. And yet they can point to 1998 as the time that ships thermometers became unreliable.
What scientists do not know is how much heat can be transported by atmospheric gases. This is important because at night when gases are less excited, how much heat is stored as energy and how much is lost through entropy/heat emission ?
After all, if our days are warmer because of what we're doing, then if that heat can't be transported then it's lost to the cold of space at night. And this means any other "warming" factor such as drying up aquifers, etc. is something that can not be controlled by atmospheric gases but is controlled by other factors.


It is not possible to store heat.

Warmer water tends to rise, just like warm air.

The Earth dissipates energy both day and night.

Shipborne thermometers are plenty accurate. They actually get checked for calibration more often than buoys do.

Buoy thermometers are checked only when the buoy is serviced, and only by comparison to the shipborne thermometer of the ship that is servicing it.

Calibration of both thermometers is done during manufacture. Checking them insures against instrument malfunction or drift.


Hey dummy - what happens to an air mass when it rises? IS it your position that it gains heat?


It cools.As long as it is warmer than the surrounding air, it will continue to rise.

It is not possible to trap heat.


So warm air rises but as it rises it cools. But the air below it is warmer - why doesn't it pass?
12-07-2017 16:36
James_
★★★☆☆
(508)
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.
The 2 people discussing their opinion have gone off topic and should be ignored. This is because it is the contention of the IPCC that the surface water is being warmed by the surface air. If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool. Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.
The one problem with this argument is they would be claiming that the oceans are absorbing about all excess heat which is highly unlikely.
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space. we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.
Our atmosphere can store heat. If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler. This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. After all, the North or South pole is less than 4,000 miles further from the Sun than the equator. The Earth's distance from the Sun is 149.6 million km. I doubt 6,400 km's would make such a stark difference in surface air temperature. I think this demonstrates quite clearly than the temperate and tropical climates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere's ability to trap, store in keep heat in a given area.
12-07-2017 16:57
spot
★★★☆☆
(922)
James_ wrote:
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.
The 2 people discussing their opinion have gone off topic and should be ignored. This is because it is the contention of the IPCC that the surface water is being warmed by the surface air. If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool. Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.
The one problem with this argument is they would be claiming that the oceans are absorbing about all excess heat which is highly unlikely.
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space. we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.
Our atmosphere can store heat. If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler. This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. After all, the North or South pole is less than 4,000 miles further from the Sun than the equator. The Earth's distance from the Sun is 149.6 million km. I doubt 6,400 km's would make such a stark difference in surface air temperature. I think this demonstrates quite clearly than the temperate and tropical climates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere's ability to trap, store in keep heat in a given area.


But air temperature is not stagnant.as you would know if you spent half the time reading up on this that you do pontificateing on this.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
12-07-2017 17:16
Wake
★★★★★
(2102)
James_ wrote:
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.
The 2 people discussing their opinion have gone off topic and should be ignored. This is because it is the contention of the IPCC that the surface water is being warmed by the surface air. If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool. Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.
The one problem with this argument is they would be claiming that the oceans are absorbing about all excess heat which is highly unlikely.
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space. we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.
Our atmosphere can store heat. If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler. This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. After all, the North or South pole is less than 4,000 miles further from the Sun than the equator. The Earth's distance from the Sun is 149.6 million km. I doubt 6,400 km's would make such a stark difference in surface air temperature. I think this demonstrates quite clearly than the temperate and tropical climates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere's ability to trap, store in keep heat in a given area.


The atmosphere doesn't "store heat" as such. The wind systems can and do overpower the conduction/convection cycling and prevent warm air from moving upwards at the rate it should.

While this appears as the atmosphere storing heat it isn't precisely what is happening.

The distance from the sun isn't why the poles are colder than the equator - it is because sunlight hits these areas on a globe at an obtuse angle and reflect off far more easily. Also there is 6 months of night on the winter side.

The atmosphere really isn't the large holder of heat anyway - it is the liquid and solid portions of the globe. Liquid water holds what... six times the thermal energy as water vapor to heat it 1 degree C?
12-07-2017 18:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This link tends to show a cooling trend since warming peaked in 1998. 1998 is supposedly when the Global Warming Pause started. This is from the EPA which President Trump does not support. Also 1998 is about the same year that ozone depletion slowed as well.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

And this link is to comments by 2 scientists associated with the University of Washington. They say that there is a 40 - 70 year cycle where the oceans absorb and release heat which the IPCC is adding to global warming figures since 1998.
And this would be where the manipulating data comes into play. The IPCC states that the heat being transported to the bottom of the ocean needs to be included as if it is heat in our atmosphere. I think they need to show that this causes the surface temperature to rise which the first link shows is not happening.
And I think at the moment that this is the center of the debate.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/09/17/global-warming-hiatus-trashed-by-new-study/

>> The NOAA paper found many of the ocean buoys used to measure sea surface temperatures over the last few decades gave cooler readings than ships. <<

Yet they won't make know what specific ways the ships used and how they were not properly calibrated. And yet they can point to 1998 as the time that ships thermometers became unreliable.
What scientists do not know is how much heat can be transported by atmospheric gases. This is important because at night when gases are less excited, how much heat is stored as energy and how much is lost through entropy/heat emission ?
After all, if our days are warmer because of what we're doing, then if that heat can't be transported then it's lost to the cold of space at night. And this means any other "warming" factor such as drying up aquifers, etc. is something that can not be controlled by atmospheric gases but is controlled by other factors.


It is not possible to store heat.

Warmer water tends to rise, just like warm air.

The Earth dissipates energy both day and night.

Shipborne thermometers are plenty accurate. They actually get checked for calibration more often than buoys do.

Buoy thermometers are checked only when the buoy is serviced, and only by comparison to the shipborne thermometer of the ship that is servicing it.

Calibration of both thermometers is done during manufacture. Checking them insures against instrument malfunction or drift.


Hey dummy - what happens to an air mass when it rises? IS it your position that it gains heat?


It cools.As long as it is warmer than the surrounding air, it will continue to rise.

It is not possible to trap heat.


So warm air rises but as it rises it cools. But the air below it is warmer - why doesn't it pass?


It does if the cooled air doesn't rise anymore. You seem to be confused about gas laws.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 19:02
Wake
★★★★★
(2102)
Into the Night wrote: You seem to be confused about gas laws.


And you don't even seem to know what "gas laws" are. Another invention of your mind.
12-07-2017 19:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
James_ wrote:
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.

Wrong. Oceans are warmed by absorbing infrared energy from the Sun.
James_ wrote:
The 2 people discussing their opinion have gone off topic and should be ignored. This is because it is the contention of the IPCC that the surface water is being warmed by the surface air.

The IPCC is wrong (again). Oceans are warmed by infrared energy from the Sun. So is the land. The atmosphere in turn is warmed by contact with the surface beneath it, whether ocean or land.
James_ wrote:
If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool.

There is no 'budget'. Oceans absorb energy from the Sun...land absorbs energy from the Sun. They absorb at different rates.
James_ wrote:
Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.
There is no 'excess' heat in this regard.
James_ wrote:
The one problem with this argument is they would be claiming that the oceans are absorbing about all excess heat which is highly unlikely.
It's actually impossible.
James_ wrote:
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat
It is not possible to store or trap heat. Heat is a flow of thermal energy. You can't store that.
James_ wrote:
in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space.

Ozone is largely transparent to UV-B. It does not reflect it. Oxygen, however, absorbs UV-B (it does not reflect it). The result is the production of ozone, an endothermic reaction. Ozone can absorb UV-C light, however. The result is the destruction of ozone into oxygen, an exothermic reaction.
James_ wrote:
we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.

We know the materials in the atmosphere. We have studied each of these materials in detail. We know the heat conductivity of each. We have a pretty good idea of the density of the atmosphere. We have all we need to get a good idea of that the total heat conductivity of the atmosphere is.
James_ wrote:
Our atmosphere can store heat.
It is not possible to store or trap heat.
James_ wrote:
If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler.
The Arctic and Antarctic are warm, thanks to surface absorption and heating by tropical air.
James_ wrote:
This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts.
The Van Allen belt does not affect our weather. They don't affect our atmosphere at all, other than to help produce the auroras and to help keep the solar wind from blowing our atmosphere away.
James_ wrote:
After all, the North or South pole is less than 4,000 miles further from the Sun than the equator. The Earth's distance from the Sun is 149.6 million km. I doubt 6,400 km's would make such a stark difference in surface air temperature.

The daytime temperature of the equator is around 80 degF. The daytime temperature of a pole can reach about 80 deg F, although is usually cooler, say about 40 deg F.

A whopping difference of 40 deg F.

The nighttime temperature of the equator is around 70 deg F. The nighttime temperature of a pole can drop to -40 deg F.

A whopping difference of 130 deg F. Of course, the pole is in nighttime for several months.

James_ wrote:
I think this demonstrates quite clearly than the temperate and tropical climates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere's ability to trap, store in keep heat in a given area.

It is not possible to store or trap heat.

You are confusing thermal energy with heat. Thermal energy is what we try to measure with a thermometer. Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place to another.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 19:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.
The 2 people discussing their opinion have gone off topic and should be ignored. This is because it is the contention of the IPCC that the surface water is being warmed by the surface air. If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool. Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.
The one problem with this argument is they would be claiming that the oceans are absorbing about all excess heat which is highly unlikely.
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space. we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.
Our atmosphere can store heat. If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler. This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. After all, the North or South pole is less than 4,000 miles further from the Sun than the equator. The Earth's distance from the Sun is 149.6 million km. I doubt 6,400 km's would make such a stark difference in surface air temperature. I think this demonstrates quite clearly than the temperate and tropical climates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere's ability to trap, store in keep heat in a given area.


The atmosphere doesn't "store heat" as such.

It doesn't store heat at all. Like any mass, it CAN store thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
The wind systems can and do overpower the conduction/convection cycling and prevent warm air from moving upwards at the rate it should.

Wind is CAUSED by differences in temperature. It does not prevent warm air from rising. It does not slow warm air rising.
Wake wrote:
While this appears as the atmosphere storing heat it isn't precisely what is happening.

It is not possible to store heat.
Wake wrote:
The distance from the sun isn't why the poles are colder than the equator - it is because sunlight hits these areas on a globe at an obtuse angle and reflect off far more easily. Also there is 6 months of night on the winter side.

Generally correct. The biggest factor is the long winters.
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere really isn't the large holder of heat anyway

It is not possible to store heat. If you replace 'heat' with 'thermal energy' in this sentence, it is correct.
Wake wrote:
- it is the liquid and solid portions of the globe. Liquid water holds what... six times the thermal energy as water vapor to heat it 1 degree C?


About the same, actually. The specific heat of water vapor is 0.95 cal/gram. The specific heat of liquid water is 1.00 cal/gram.

Are you thinking of dry air? That has a specific heat of about 0.24 cal/gram, which makes liquid water 4 times as difficult to change it's temperature from the same energy.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 19:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You seem to be confused about gas laws.


And you don't even seem to know what "gas laws" are. Another invention of your mind.


Hey dumbass...did you know that when a gas loses pressure it COOLS???

Maybe you should stop using your air conditioner! YOU say it doesn't work!


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 20:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(508)
@All,
Something to consider. It was an IPCC report in 2013 that started a lot of debate because it stated a 15 year pause in Global Warming. It could be there are bullies at the IPCC that are more concerned about their status than they are about the quality of their work. And this would be why scientists would state that ships have been making erroneous readings. If not then why did the warming slow so much for when CO2 levels were still rising ?
And this does coincide with a significant slowing of ozone loss in the stratosphere.

If this is correct then....
>> "Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined –

5.2.1 Halocarbons Controlled Under the Montreal Protocol
The success of the Montreal Protocol in limiting the atmospheric abundance of ODSs is now well
documented. Implementation of its measures has resulted in significantly lower EESC than would
otherwise have occurred (WMO, 2011 and preceding reports) as well as reductions in radiative forcing of
climate change. Chapter 1 in this report finds that this success in limiting CFC and halon abundances has
continued

a reduction in radiative forcing is another way of saying cooling.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/chapters/chapter5_2014OzoneAssessment.pdf

Introduction to RF
The Earth's surface temperature is determined by the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. Radiative Forcing (RF) is the measurement of the capacity of a gas or other forcing agents to affect that energy balance, thereby contributing to climate change

http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/aviation/RF.html
Edited on 12-07-2017 20:48
12-07-2017 21:29
Wake
★★★★★
(2102)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.
The 2 people discussing their opinion have gone off topic and should be ignored. This is because it is the contention of the IPCC that the surface water is being warmed by the surface air. If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool. Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.
The one problem with this argument is they would be claiming that the oceans are absorbing about all excess heat which is highly unlikely.
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space. we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.
Our atmosphere can store heat. If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler. This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. After all, the North or South pole is less than 4,000 miles further from the Sun than the equator. The Earth's distance from the Sun is 149.6 million km. I doubt 6,400 km's would make such a stark difference in surface air temperature. I think this demonstrates quite clearly than the temperate and tropical climates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere's ability to trap, store in keep heat in a given area.


The atmosphere doesn't "store heat" as such.

It doesn't store heat at all. Like any mass, it CAN store thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
The wind systems can and do overpower the conduction/convection cycling and prevent warm air from moving upwards at the rate it should.

Wind is CAUSED by differences in temperature. It does not prevent warm air from rising. It does not slow warm air rising.
Wake wrote:
While this appears as the atmosphere storing heat it isn't precisely what is happening.

It is not possible to store heat.
Wake wrote:
The distance from the sun isn't why the poles are colder than the equator - it is because sunlight hits these areas on a globe at an obtuse angle and reflect off far more easily. Also there is 6 months of night on the winter side.

Generally correct. The biggest factor is the long winters.
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere really isn't the large holder of heat anyway

It is not possible to store heat. If you replace 'heat' with 'thermal energy' in this sentence, it is correct.
Wake wrote:
- it is the liquid and solid portions of the globe. Liquid water holds what... six times the thermal energy as water vapor to heat it 1 degree C?


About the same, actually. The specific heat of water vapor is 0.95 cal/gram. The specific heat of liquid water is 1.00 cal/gram.

Are you thinking of dry air? That has a specific heat of about 0.24 cal/gram, which makes liquid water 4 times as difficult to change it's temperature from the same energy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy
"In thermodynamics, thermal energy refers to the internal energy present in a system due to its temperature.[1] The concept is not well-defined or broadly accepted in physics or thermodynamics, because the internal energy can be changed without changing the temperature, and there is no way to distinguish which part of a system's internal energy is "thermal". "

Go invent more "real stuff".
Edited on 12-07-2017 21:29
12-07-2017 21:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
James_ wrote:
@All,
Something to consider. It was an IPCC report in 2013 that started a lot of debate because it stated a 15 year pause in Global Warming. It could be there are bullies at the IPCC that are more concerned about their status than they are about the quality of their work.

The IPCC is a political group. They neither use nor create science.
James_ wrote:
And this would be why scientists would state that ships have been making erroneous readings

Ships haven't been taking erroneous readings.
James_ wrote:
If not then why did the warming slow so much for when CO2 levels were still rising ?

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. It is not possible to determine if the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same.
James_ wrote:
And this does coincide with a significant slowing of ozone loss in the stratosphere.

We are not losing ozone in the atmosphere. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. You can't stop it, even if you wanted to.
James_ wrote:
If this is correct then....
...deleted redundant argument, Holy Links, and 'proof' of the effect of ozone on temperature...

It is not correct. The ozone is not being reduced. It never was.
James_ wrote:
Introduction to RF
The Earth's surface temperature is determined by the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. Radiative Forcing (RF) is the measurement of the capacity of a gas or other forcing agents to affect that energy balance, thereby contributing to climate change

...deleted Holy Link...

You are violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Radiance is never inversely proportional to temperature.

Energy in = energy out. No magick Holy Gas or any other substance can change that. You cannot trap energy. It will always flow to lower energy regions.

Here's another little problem with your Magick Bouncing Photon theory:

The daylit skin of the ISS reaches 250 deg F. If carbon dioxide or any other Holy Gas warms the Earth, why is Earth considerably COLDER during the day?


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2017 22:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.
The 2 people discussing their opinion have gone off topic and should be ignored. This is because it is the contention of the IPCC that the surface water is being warmed by the surface air. If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool. Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.
The one problem with this argument is they would be claiming that the oceans are absorbing about all excess heat which is highly unlikely.
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space. we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.
Our atmosphere can store heat. If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler. This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. After all, the North or South pole is less than 4,000 miles further from the Sun than the equator. The Earth's distance from the Sun is 149.6 million km. I doubt 6,400 km's would make such a stark difference in surface air temperature. I think this demonstrates quite clearly than the temperate and tropical climates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere's ability to trap, store in keep heat in a given area.


The atmosphere doesn't "store heat" as such.

It doesn't store heat at all. Like any mass, it CAN store thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
The wind systems can and do overpower the conduction/convection cycling and prevent warm air from moving upwards at the rate it should.

Wind is CAUSED by differences in temperature. It does not prevent warm air from rising. It does not slow warm air rising.
Wake wrote:
While this appears as the atmosphere storing heat it isn't precisely what is happening.

It is not possible to store heat.
Wake wrote:
The distance from the sun isn't why the poles are colder than the equator - it is because sunlight hits these areas on a globe at an obtuse angle and reflect off far more easily. Also there is 6 months of night on the winter side.

Generally correct. The biggest factor is the long winters.
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere really isn't the large holder of heat anyway

It is not possible to store heat. If you replace 'heat' with 'thermal energy' in this sentence, it is correct.
Wake wrote:
- it is the liquid and solid portions of the globe. Liquid water holds what... six times the thermal energy as water vapor to heat it 1 degree C?


About the same, actually. The specific heat of water vapor is 0.95 cal/gram. The specific heat of liquid water is 1.00 cal/gram.

Are you thinking of dry air? That has a specific heat of about 0.24 cal/gram, which makes liquid water 4 times as difficult to change it's temperature from the same energy.


...deleted Holy Link and Quote...



Wikipedia articles are dismissed on sight. There are too many articles that are biased, wrong, or just plain badly written. Wikipedia is not the Oracle of Truth.

In this case, you have quoted out of context of the article. Go at least read the article before you make contextomies like this. You will find a definition of heat there.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. You cannot trap heat. (You cannot trap thermal energy either. As long as there is a coupling to a colder region, energy will flow. There is no place where there is no coupling.)


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-07-2017 22:08
12-07-2017 22:55
Wake
★★★★★
(2102)
Into the Night wrote: Wikipedia articles are dismissed on sight. There are too many articles that are biased, wrong, or just plain badly written. Wikipedia is not the Oracle of Truth.


And another case of "I define things the way I want them defined."
13-07-2017 01:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Wikipedia articles are dismissed on sight. There are too many articles that are biased, wrong, or just plain badly written. Wikipedia is not the Oracle of Truth.


And another case of "I define things the way I want them defined."


Go read the article you quoted, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
13-07-2017 01:28
James_
★★★☆☆
(508)
@All,
This is an e-mail that I sent to 2 editors in Kentucky where I live. I am not sure if anything will come of it but do have a historical project that I've been working on. Am not sure if either editor will find my experiment worth trying or if they're willing to consider that the IPCC is not united in their opinion but a few scientists need for CO2 to be causing climate change.

James_


Hi,
If you read what I (James_) posted there is a reason why some people at the IPCC lied. CO2 is supposed to be causing global warming, right ? Yet their 2013 report suggested that record levels of CO2 and CH4 slowed radiative forcing by sustaining the ozone layer.
To compensate for this cooling effect they blamed ships that took readings. Non science type people took the hit for getting it wrong when they didn't. And by saying the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans were absorbing heat they could say that CO2 was still causing our atmosphere to warm.
My experiment which if successful might make it harder not to examine the IPCC's 2013 report. It'd show that I know what I'm talking about and that a few bullies at the IPCC have taken over. There were conflicting press releases because some scientists supported the pause while others did not.
Edited on 13-07-2017 01:29
13-07-2017 02:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
James_ wrote:
@All,
This is an e-mail that I sent to 2 editors in Kentucky where I live. I am not sure if anything will come of it but do have a historical project that I've been working on. Am not sure if either editor will find my experiment worth trying or if they're willing to consider that the IPCC is not united in their opinion but a few scientists need for CO2 to be causing climate change.

James_


Hi,
If you read what I (James_) posted there is a reason why some people at the IPCC lied. CO2 is supposed to be causing global warming, right ? Yet their 2013 report suggested that record levels of CO2 and CH4 slowed radiative forcing by sustaining the ozone layer.
To compensate for this cooling effect they blamed ships that took readings. Non science type people took the hit for getting it wrong when they didn't. And by saying the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans were absorbing heat they could say that CO2 was still causing our atmosphere to warm.
My experiment which if successful might make it harder not to examine the IPCC's 2013 report. It'd show that I know what I'm talking about and that a few bullies at the IPCC have taken over. There were conflicting press releases because some scientists supported the pause while others did not.


Keep looking. There's bound to be a politician stupid enough to bite. Of course, you will have to actually describe the experiment to them (is there one?).


The Parrot Killer
13-07-2017 15:28
James_
★★★☆☆
(508)
Into the Night wrote:

Keep looking. There's bound to be a politician stupid enough to bite. Of course, you will have to actually describe the experiment to them (is there one?).


There is a difference between myself and you. The experiment is something that I could probably do on my own but that's not the point. What the media could bite on is why did the IPCC issue a report in 2013 that showed that there was a 15 year Global Warming Pause only to have other scientists in the IPCC discredit the IPCC's own report ? That is a rarity. Scientists associated with a report usually do not try to discredit work they or their colleagues were involved with.
I think this graph shows how important ozone (O3) is. It shows that ozone significantly reduces the watts/m^2 and if it is shown that CO2 + H2O > CH2O & O2 = start of the Chapman cycle then it would show why the IPCC's 2013 report was in fact correct. And the areas that are circled and say H2O & CO2 could be where atmospheric mixing (ch2o & o2) occurs.

http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg
13-07-2017 18:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Keep looking. There's bound to be a politician stupid enough to bite. Of course, you will have to actually describe the experiment to them (is there one?).


There is a difference between myself and you. The experiment is something that I could probably do on my own but that's not the point. What the media could bite on is why did the IPCC issue a report in 2013 that showed that there was a 15 year Global Warming Pause only to have other scientists in the IPCC discredit the IPCC's own report ? That is a rarity. Scientists associated with a report usually do not try to discredit work they or their colleagues were involved with.
I think this graph shows how important ozone (O3) is. It shows that ozone significantly reduces the watts/m^2 and if it is shown that CO2 + H2O > CH2O & O2 = start of the Chapman cycle then it would show why the IPCC's 2013 report was in fact correct. And the areas that are circled and say H2O & CO2 could be where atmospheric mixing (ch2o & o2) occurs.

http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg


What IS your experiment? Why can you not do it on your own?


The Parrot Killer
13-07-2017 21:58
James_
★★★☆☆
(508)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Keep looking. There's bound to be a politician stupid enough to bite. Of course, you will have to actually describe the experiment to them (is there one?).


There is a difference between myself and you. The experiment is something that I could probably do on my own but that's not the point. What the media could bite on is why did the IPCC issue a report in 2013 that showed that there was a 15 year Global Warming Pause only to have other scientists in the IPCC discredit the IPCC's own report ? That is a rarity. Scientists associated with a report usually do not try to discredit work they or their colleagues were involved with.
I think this graph shows how important ozone (O3) is. It shows that ozone significantly reduces the watts/m^2 and if it is shown that CO2 + H2O > CH2O & O2 = start of the Chapman cycle then it would show why the IPCC's 2013 report was in fact correct. And the areas that are circled and say H2O & CO2 could be where atmospheric mixing (ch2o & o2) occurs.

http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg


What IS your experiment? Why can you not do it on your own?


As far as the experiment goes, if I did it on my own I could be accused of falsifying the results. If someone works with me or tries it and finds that atmospheric mixing does happen then the peer review process where other scientists would try it would start. Then once other scientists have verified it then the results could be accepted.
The experiment requires 2 weather balloons. One would be filled with helium which would tow weather balloon #2.
If weather balloon #2 were about a 6ft. dia. balloon and filled with 1 liter of nitrogen, 25 cc's of oxygen (O2), 0.25 cc's of both CO2 and H2O. This would leave weather balloon #2 under inflated. Then when it is towed to the upper troposphere or the lower tropopause it would expand. When this happens one of 2 things will happen.
The first possibility is nothing happens and the 2nd possibility is that CH2O along with increased levels of O2 would be found. If it's the latter then it I would leave it to scientists to determine if Conservation of Momentum caused the atmospheric mixing or an aspect of thermodynamics. An example of this is >> The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/ << At the same time it can change to seek an equilibrium.
>> The four laws of thermodynamics define fundamental physical quantities (temperature, energy, and entropy) that characterize thermodynamic systems at thermal equilibrium. << https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
Needless to say if it is successful it will be something revolutionary because we would need to reconsider natural processes in our atmosphere. There is one thing to remeber when it comes to this experiment, that is when a lack of pressure expands the test balloon that is an outside force acting on the molecules inside the balloon. This will allow for a controlled experiment to see if atmospheric mixing happens when only 4 gases (water vapor is a gas) are used. If so then this will allow for a better understanding of why something happened as it limits the possibilities.

And Into the Night, a part of science is hypothesizing something and then figuring out a way to test the hypothesis. And if necessary I will be able to pursue this on my own. What the 2 editors might consider is if something like this might benefit the state that we live in. since coal is a part of our states economy even if this does little to help that industry at least the people that live where we do know that things are being tried. With that said things do take time and if they're never tried then nothing will happen.
Edited on 13-07-2017 22:13
13-07-2017 23:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Keep looking. There's bound to be a politician stupid enough to bite. Of course, you will have to actually describe the experiment to them (is there one?).


There is a difference between myself and you. The experiment is something that I could probably do on my own but that's not the point. What the media could bite on is why did the IPCC issue a report in 2013 that showed that there was a 15 year Global Warming Pause only to have other scientists in the IPCC discredit the IPCC's own report ? That is a rarity. Scientists associated with a report usually do not try to discredit work they or their colleagues were involved with.
I think this graph shows how important ozone (O3) is. It shows that ozone significantly reduces the watts/m^2 and if it is shown that CO2 + H2O > CH2O & O2 = start of the Chapman cycle then it would show why the IPCC's 2013 report was in fact correct. And the areas that are circled and say H2O & CO2 could be where atmospheric mixing (ch2o & o2) occurs.

http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg


What IS your experiment? Why can you not do it on your own?


As far as the experiment goes, if I did it on my own I could be accused of falsifying the results. If someone works with me or tries it and finds that atmospheric mixing does happen then the peer review process where other scientists would try it would start. Then once other scientists have verified it then the results could be accepted.
The experiment requires 2 weather balloons. One would be filled with helium which would tow weather balloon #2.
If weather balloon #2 were about a 6ft. dia. balloon and filled with 1 liter of nitrogen, 25 cc's of oxygen (O2), 0.25 cc's of both CO2 and H2O. This would leave weather balloon #2 under inflated. Then when it is towed to the upper troposphere or the lower tropopause it would expand. When this happens one of 2 things will happen.
The first possibility is nothing happens and the 2nd possibility is that CH2O along with increased levels of O2 would be found. If it's the latter then it I would leave it to scientists to determine if Conservation of Momentum caused the atmospheric mixing or an aspect of thermodynamics. An example of this is >> The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/ << At the same time it can change to seek an equilibrium.
>> The four laws of thermodynamics define fundamental physical quantities (temperature, energy, and entropy) that characterize thermodynamic systems at thermal equilibrium. << https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
Needless to say if it is successful it will be something revolutionary because we would need to reconsider natural processes in our atmosphere. There is one thing to remeber when it comes to this experiment, that is when a lack of pressure expands the test balloon that is an outside force acting on the molecules inside the balloon. This will allow for a controlled experiment to see if atmospheric mixing happens when only 4 gases (water vapor is a gas) are used. If so then this will allow for a better understanding of why something happened as it limits the possibilities.

And Into the Night, a part of science is hypothesizing something and then figuring out a way to test the hypothesis. And if necessary I will be able to pursue this on my own. What the 2 editors might consider is if something like this might benefit the state that we live in. since coal is a part of our states economy even if this does little to help that industry at least the people that live where we do know that things are being tried. With that said things do take time and if they're never tried then nothing will happen.


Why do you need balloons at all? Couldn't this be put into a container in a laboratory and tested there? You could simply put the 'test' balloon inside a vacuum chamber.

(I believe you meant lower stratosphere, since you are already ARE in the lower troposphere.)

How are you going to determine the content of the test balloon? Are you going to put instrumentation inside the balloon?


The Parrot Killer
13-07-2017 23:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(508)
Into the Night wrote:

How are you going to determine the content of the test balloon? Are you going to put instrumentation inside the balloon?


Into the Night,
With the nitrogen that'd be easy enough to meter when filling the balloon, that doesn't have to be exact. With the O2, CO2 sensors would say the ppm. The water wouldn't matter. This is because if when the balloon is captured and tested then if CH2O is found sensors would show that as well as the amount of CO2 and O2.
If those numbers change or are found (CH2O) then that would demonstrate something happened. And you are right, this could be done in a laboratory. with balloons it would allow for a better photo op.

And for those who are not aware this was also in the 2013 IPCC report;

In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
13-07-2017 23:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

How are you going to determine the content of the test balloon? Are you going to put instrumentation inside the balloon?


Into the Night,
With the nitrogen that'd be easy enough to meter when filling the balloon, that doesn't have to be exact. With the O2, CO2 sensors would say the ppm. The water wouldn't matter. This is because if when the balloon is captured and tested then if CH2O is found sensors would show that as well as the amount of CO2 and O2.
If those numbers change or are found (CH2O) then that would demonstrate something happened. And you are right, this could be done in a laboratory. with balloons it would allow for a better photo op.

And for those who are not aware this was also in the 2013 IPCC report;

In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

...deleted Holy Link...

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was.


The Parrot Killer
14-07-2017 15:26
James_
★★★☆☆
(508)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

How are you going to determine the content of the test balloon? Are you going to put instrumentation inside the balloon?


Into the Night,
With the nitrogen that'd be easy enough to meter when filling the balloon, that doesn't have to be exact. With the O2, CO2 sensors would say the ppm. The water wouldn't matter. This is because if when the balloon is captured and tested then if CH2O is found sensors would show that as well as the amount of CO2 and O2.
If those numbers change or are found (CH2O) then that would demonstrate something happened. And you are right, this could be done in a laboratory. with balloons it would allow for a better photo op.

And for those who are not aware this was also in the 2013 IPCC report;

In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

...deleted Holy Link...

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was.


Into the Night,
Why do you consider using a link for reference to source material as a
Holy Link ? This is tiresome. You seem to want to limit discussions to what you understand which seems to be very little. I think everyone else has accepted the fact that the ozone layer is depleted while you say it isn't because CFC's can't destroy ozone. Much of what you say has no basis in science but only in your own opinion. Am curious, do you want things proven to you ? This can't happen if you have no grasp of science or any of it's principals. I do think you are in the wrong place.

Bye
14-07-2017 18:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

How are you going to determine the content of the test balloon? Are you going to put instrumentation inside the balloon?


Into the Night,
With the nitrogen that'd be easy enough to meter when filling the balloon, that doesn't have to be exact. With the O2, CO2 sensors would say the ppm. The water wouldn't matter. This is because if when the balloon is captured and tested then if CH2O is found sensors would show that as well as the amount of CO2 and O2.
If those numbers change or are found (CH2O) then that would demonstrate something happened. And you are right, this could be done in a laboratory. with balloons it would allow for a better photo op.

And for those who are not aware this was also in the 2013 IPCC report;

In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

...deleted Holy Link...

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was.


Into the Night,
Why do you consider using a link for reference to source material as a
Holy Link ?

Because it indicates you aren't thinking for yourself. You are letting others do your thinking for you. It is because such people worship the Holy Link as if it were some kind of Oracle of Truth.

The internet is full of all kinds of crap, particularly when it comes to things like 'global warming' (which you have never defined without using a circular argument).

James_ wrote:
This is tiresome.

Stop using Holy Links. Start thinking for yourself. You don't need The Link.
James_ wrote:
You seem to want to limit discussions to what you understand which seems to be very little.

You are free to talk about anything you want. You are not free of any responses to it.
James_ wrote:
I think everyone else has accepted the fact that the ozone layer is depleted while you say it isn't because CFC's can't destroy ozone.

CFC's are basically inert. Placed in a tank with ozone, nothing happens. This is actually by design. As a refrigerant, CFC's were developed to replace the far more dangerous ammonia that was (and still is in some places) in use.

CFC's are heavier than air. They don't wander very high.

IF you break up CFC's into their component elements, part of what you get is chlorine, which can act as a catalyst for ozone destruction. However, chlorine is extremely reactive. It will reactive with something else before reacting with any ozone.

If CFC's are the cause of the destruction of ozone, why are the ozone holes over the poles instead of the industrialized nations? Most nations have banned CFC's now. Why are the holes over the poles still there?

Ozone is created by reaction of oxygen with any source of energy. Heat, light, electricity, anything. Ozone is self destructive. Removing the energy source will result in the decay of ozone.

Ozone in the stratosphere is created by oxygen reacting with UV-B light. Ozone is also destroyed by UV-C light, which enters the top of the stratosphere, but is filtered out by ozone absorption. Most UV-B light is filtered out by oxygen absorption.

Ozone is created at the bottom of the stratosphere and destroyed at the top. Ozone creation is an endothermic reaction. It cools the surrounding air. Ozone destruction is an exothermic reaction. It warms the surrounding air.

Ozone is the reason there is a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

Man does not manufacture enough CFC's or anything else to make any significant dent in it.

The holes are at the poles because that pole is in winter there. There is no sun to produce ozone. The holes vary in size from year to year depending on the upper air winds.

The Ozone Scare coincided with Dupont's patent running out on R12. The patent for R134a is a new one. Government saw the power of the Ozone Scare over people and saw an opportunity to expand themselves (the first purpose of any government or government agency).

Since then, the Ozone Scare was rolled into the gospel of the Church of Gaia and later the Church of Global Warming.

James_ wrote:
Much of what you say has no basis in science but only in your own opinion.

My basis for my ozone argument comes from chemistry, atmospheric sciences, meteorology, and history.
James_ wrote:
Am curious, do you want things proven to you ?

You can't prove a theory of science. Science is an open system. Repeating the Holy Links referring to the gospel of the Church of Gaia or the Church of Global Warming is not a proof.
James_ wrote:
This can't happen if you have no grasp of science or any of it's principals.

I understand science. It is not a religion, unlike the Church of Global Warming.
James_ wrote:
I do think you are in the wrong place.

Pretty weak attempt at censorship. Most people in your Religion are more aggressive than that.


The Parrot Killer
14-07-2017 20:56
Wake
★★★★★
(2102)
spot wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.
The 2 people discussing their opinion have gone off topic and should be ignored. This is because it is the contention of the IPCC that the surface water is being warmed by the surface air. If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool. Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.
The one problem with this argument is they would be claiming that the oceans are absorbing about all excess heat which is highly unlikely.
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space. we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.
Our atmosphere can store heat. If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler. This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. After all, the North or South pole is less than 4,000 miles further from the Sun than the equator. The Earth's distance from the Sun is 149.6 million km. I doubt 6,400 km's would make such a stark difference in surface air temperature. I think this demonstrates quite clearly than the temperate and tropical climates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere's ability to trap, store in keep heat in a given area.


But air temperature is not stagnant.as you would know if you spent half the time reading up on this that you do pontificateing on this.


So your science doesn't come from knowing anything from experience but from "reading up on it"? Half of all research papers are wrong and will have papers falsifying them usually withing 5 years but sometimes some theories are so well accepted that they falsification takes decades.
15-07-2017 14:41
James_
★★★☆☆
(508)
spot wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.
The 2 people discussing their opinion have gone off topic and should be ignored. This is because it is the contention of the IPCC that the surface water is being warmed by the surface air. If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool. Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.
The one problem with this argument is they would be claiming that the oceans are absorbing about all excess heat which is highly unlikely.
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space. we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.
Our atmosphere can store heat. If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler. This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. After all, the North or South pole is less than 4,000 miles further from the Sun than the equator. The Earth's distance from the Sun is 149.6 million km. I doubt 6,400 km's would make such a stark difference in surface air temperature. I think this demonstrates quite clearly than the temperate and tropical climates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere's ability to trap, store in keep heat in a given area.


But air temperature is not stagnant.as you would know if you spent half the time reading up on this that you do pontificateing on this.


spot,
The annual global air temperature according to the EPA is stagnant meaning that it is not rising which Global Warming requires. At the same time Into the Dark Ages says that I belong to the Church of Global Warming. He also states that science has to be dismissed. And he is the moderator otherwise he couldn't delete Holy Links. This is a strange forum.
15-07-2017 16:01
spot
★★★☆☆
(922)
I am not familer with the EPA's statements on this matter, https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally That link I provided suggests that 2016 was the hottest year recorded so I don't see how temperature could be described as stagnant.

I should ignore Into the night If I were you, I don't know what makes you think he's a moderator. Branner owns this board and while its keeped up he does not have the time to manage it you can message him if you like. Essentially this board is basically unmoderated. So you are free to post whatever crazy theory goes through your head. but the people you interact with are likely crazy as well.

If this was a room this would be it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcztDZ13TLI
15-07-2017 17:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.
The 2 people discussing their opinion have gone off topic and should be ignored. This is because it is the contention of the IPCC that the surface water is being warmed by the surface air. If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool. Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.
The one problem with this argument is they would be claiming that the oceans are absorbing about all excess heat which is highly unlikely.
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space. we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.
Our atmosphere can store heat. If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler. This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. After all, the North or South pole is less than 4,000 miles further from the Sun than the equator. The Earth's distance from the Sun is 149.6 million km. I doubt 6,400 km's would make such a stark difference in surface air temperature. I think this demonstrates quite clearly than the temperate and tropical climates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere's ability to trap, store in keep heat in a given area.


But air temperature is not stagnant.as you would know if you spent half the time reading up on this that you do pontificateing on this.


So your science doesn't come from knowing anything from experience but from "reading up on it"? Half of all research papers are wrong and will have papers falsifying them usually withing 5 years but sometimes some theories are so well accepted that they falsification takes decades.


Falsification takes place in an instant. It can take decades for a lot of people to accept it though.

Remember that consensus is not used in science.


The Parrot Killer
15-07-2017 17:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
James_ wrote:
The annual global air temperature according to the EPA is stagnant meaning that it is not rising which Global Warming requires.

How does you or the EPA know the temperature is staying the same?

You don't know any better than the believers of the Church of Global Warming.
James_ wrote:
At the same time Into the Dark Ages says that I belong to the Church of Global Warming.

You do seem to use a lot of their arguments when it's convenient for you.
James_ wrote:
He also states that science has to be dismissed.

Never did say this.
James_ wrote:
And he is the moderator otherwise he couldn't delete Holy Links.

Never deleted a Holy Link in your posts. I can't edit your posts. Attempted redefinition of 'quote' as 'post'.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-07-2017 18:00
15-07-2017 20:10
James_
★★★☆☆
(508)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The annual global air temperature according to the EPA is stagnant meaning that it is not rising which Global Warming requires.

How does you or the EPA know the temperature is staying the same?

If you can't figure this out I feel sorry for you.
Edited on 15-07-2017 21:01
15-07-2017 21:16
Wake
★★★★★
(2102)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.
The 2 people discussing their opinion have gone off topic and should be ignored. This is because it is the contention of the IPCC that the surface water is being warmed by the surface air. If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool. Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.
The one problem with this argument is they would be claiming that the oceans are absorbing about all excess heat which is highly unlikely.
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space. we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.
Our atmosphere can store heat. If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler. This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. After all, the North or South pole is less than 4,000 miles further from the Sun than the equator. The Earth's distance from the Sun is 149.6 million km. I doubt 6,400 km's would make such a stark difference in surface air temperature. I think this demonstrates quite clearly than the temperate and tropical climates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere's ability to trap, store in keep heat in a given area.


But air temperature is not stagnant.as you would know if you spent half the time reading up on this that you do pontificateing on this.


So your science doesn't come from knowing anything from experience but from "reading up on it"? Half of all research papers are wrong and will have papers falsifying them usually withing 5 years but sometimes some theories are so well accepted that they falsification takes decades.


Falsification takes place in an instant. It can take decades for a lot of people to accept it though.

Remember that consensus is not used in science.


More BS from the guy that defines his own words. Falsification ONLY comes by a paper that supposedly advances science and in so doing reverses opinion on a previously accepted paper.

One of these days you will remove your head from your posterior orifice and see daylight for the first time.
16-07-2017 17:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.
The 2 people discussing their opinion have gone off topic and should be ignored. This is because it is the contention of the IPCC that the surface water is being warmed by the surface air. If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool. Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.
The one problem with this argument is they would be claiming that the oceans are absorbing about all excess heat which is highly unlikely.
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space. we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.
Our atmosphere can store heat. If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler. This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. After all, the North or South pole is less than 4,000 miles further from the Sun than the equator. The Earth's distance from the Sun is 149.6 million km. I doubt 6,400 km's would make such a stark difference in surface air temperature. I think this demonstrates quite clearly than the temperate and tropical climates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere's ability to trap, store in keep heat in a given area.


But air temperature is not stagnant.as you would know if you spent half the time reading up on this that you do pontificateing on this.


So your science doesn't come from knowing anything from experience but from "reading up on it"? Half of all research papers are wrong and will have papers falsifying them usually withing 5 years but sometimes some theories are so well accepted that they falsification takes decades.


Falsification takes place in an instant. It can take decades for a lot of people to accept it though.

Remember that consensus is not used in science.


More BS from the guy that defines his own words. Falsification ONLY comes by a paper that supposedly advances science and in so doing reverses opinion on a previously accepted paper.

One of these days you will remove your head from your posterior orifice and see daylight for the first time.


Paper is not required for science.

Falsification occurs the instant the conflicting evidence is discovered. It may or may not inspire a new theory.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-07-2017 17:57
16-07-2017 18:17
James_
★★★☆☆
(508)
Into the Night,
Al Gore was right when he said the discussion on climate change was a debate.You talk in circles and all you have is your pseudo logic. You keep creating conditions under which you will allow people to debate what "truth" is or what "climate" is.
And like you, Al Gore has no interesting understanding our climate or why it changes. As you state our planet does not warm. Yet the last Ice Age came to an end, didn't it ? But can we prove to you that there was an Ice Age ? We can't.


Jim
Edited on 16-07-2017 18:17
16-07-2017 18:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3814)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
Al Gore was right when he said the discussion on climate change was a debate.
Never said there wasn't. Now you drag out the Son in the Church of Global Warmng? He was 'crucified' by the people, and is brought up from the dead from time to time to say something stupid.
James_ wrote:
You talk in circles
You are confused. I am responding to your circles.
James_ wrote:
and all you have is your pseudo logic.
Nope. I have theories of science backing my position. I also have currently accepted philosophy, formal logic, and mathematics.
James_ wrote:
You keep creating conditions under which you will allow people to debate what "truth" is or what "climate" is.

Only because people like you try assign some kind of Universal Truth to them.

Can you define what 'climate change' is without using circular arguments, links, or quotes?

Science does not make theories about what you can't define.

James_ wrote:
And like you, Al Gore has no interesting understanding our climate or why it changes.
Al Gore has no understanding. Yet now you bring him up as if he were the Son of God in the Church of Global Warming.
James_ wrote:
As you state our planet does not warm.
I never did state this. I said you can't determine the temperature of the planet to any useful degree of accuracy.
James_ wrote:
Yet the last Ice Age came to an end, didn't it ?
Assuming there WAS an ice age, yes.
James_ wrote:
But can we prove to you that there was an Ice Age ?
No. It is accepted by supporting evidence in the geology. The Gorge in the State of Washington was created by the last ice age ending. So was Salt Lake (the lake) in Utah. These are interpretations of geology found that are similar to those under ice sheets existing today. It is not a proof.
James_ wrote:
We can't.

Correct.


The Parrot Killer
16-07-2017 22:00
Wake
★★★★★
(2102)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.
The 2 people discussing their opinion have gone off topic and should be ignored. This is because it is the contention of the IPCC that the surface water is being warmed by the surface air. If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool. Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.
The one problem with this argument is they would be claiming that the oceans are absorbing about all excess heat which is highly unlikely.
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space. we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.
Our atmosphere can store heat. If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler. This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. After all, the North or South pole is less than 4,000 miles further from the Sun than the equator. The Earth's distance from the Sun is 149.6 million km. I doubt 6,400 km's would make such a stark difference in surface air temperature. I think this demonstrates quite clearly than the temperate and tropical climates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere's ability to trap, store in keep heat in a given area.


But air temperature is not stagnant.as you would know if you spent half the time reading up on this that you do pontificateing on this.


So your science doesn't come from knowing anything from experience but from "reading up on it"? Half of all research papers are wrong and will have papers falsifying them usually withing 5 years but sometimes some theories are so well accepted that they falsification takes decades.


Falsification takes place in an instant. It can take decades for a lot of people to accept it though.

Remember that consensus is not used in science.


More BS from the guy that defines his own words. Falsification ONLY comes by a paper that supposedly advances science and in so doing reverses opinion on a previously accepted paper.

One of these days you will remove your head from your posterior orifice and see daylight for the first time.


Paper is not required for science.

Falsification occurs the instant the conflicting evidence is discovered. It may or may not inspire a new theory.


Since you show again and again that you haven't any idea what science is you are doing nothing but making noises similar to a release of stomach gas. PhD physicist indeed.




Join the debate Possible the IPCC corrupted data ?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate Data 800,000 years17105-09-2017 22:01
Is the IPCC Biased?13312-07-2017 18:37
major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-19982104-07-2017 19:33
CO2, The Ozone Layer, The Chapman Cycle, The IPCC and NOAA2424-06-2017 20:37
The Strange Case of the Wandering Data312-06-2017 19:41
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact