Possible the IPCC corrupted data ?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Into the Night wrote: You seem to be confused about gas laws.

James_ wrote:
@All,
If surface air temperatures are stagnant then any increase in surface water temperature would need to come from below the surface.

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.

James_ wrote:
If the oceans were absorbing more heat then the surface air temperature would cool.

James_ wrote:
Their claim is that the surface air temperature would be higher if not for the oceans absorbing the excess heat.

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.

James_ wrote:
And as much as some don't want to believe it our atmosphere can store heat

James_ wrote:
in the same manner that the ozone layer can reflect UV-B rays back out into space.

James_ wrote:
we don't know that they do because atmospheric gases ability to transport heat has not been studied.

James_ wrote:
Our atmosphere can store heat.

James_ wrote:
If not then the area between the Arctic and Antarctica would be much cooler.

James_ wrote:
This region is affected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Wake wrote:
The atmosphere really isn't the large holder of heat anyway

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?

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.

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.

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.

James_ wrote:
And this would be why scientists would state that ships have been making erroneous readings

James_ wrote:
If not then why did the warming slow so much for when CO2 levels were still rising ?

James_ wrote:
And this does coincide with a significant slowing of ozone loss in the stratosphere.

James_ wrote:
If this is correct then....
...deleted redundant argument, Holy Links, and 'proof' of the effect of ozone on temperature...

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...

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...

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.

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."

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.

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?).

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

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?

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.

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?

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...

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.

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 ?

James_ wrote:
This is tiresome.

James_ wrote:
You seem to want to limit discussions to what you understand which seems to be very little.

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.

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

James_ wrote:
Am curious, do you want things proven to you ?

James_ wrote:
This can't happen if you have no grasp of science or any of it's principals.

James_ wrote:
I do think you are in the wrong place.

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 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.

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.

James_ wrote:
The annual global air temperature according to the EPA is stagnant meaning that it is not rising which Global Warming requires.

James_ wrote:
At the same time Into the Dark Ages says that I belong to the Church of Global Warming.

James_ wrote:
He also states that science has to be dismissed.

James_ wrote:
And he is the moderator otherwise he couldn't delete Holy Links.

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.

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.

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.

James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
Al Gore was right when he said the discussion on climate change was a debate.

James_ wrote:
You talk in circles

James_ wrote:
and all you have is your pseudo logic.

James_ wrote:
You keep creating conditions under which you will allow people to debate what "truth" is or what "climate" is.

James_ wrote:
And like you, Al Gore has no interesting understanding our climate or why it changes.

James_ wrote:
As you state our planet does not warm.

James_ wrote:
Yet the last Ice Age came to an end, didn't it ?

James_ wrote:
But can we prove to you that there was an Ice Age ?

James_ wrote:
We can't.

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.