Remember me
▼ Content

So Is The Feedback Positive Or Negative?



Page 3 of 5<12345>
20-03-2017 21:18
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(562)
Frescomexico wrote:[/b]You talk as if the "man-made CO2 power-up" has already happened. It has barely begun and we are just guessing with models where it is going and if it is dangerous.


You'll have to forgive Chief Copynpaste...he's a bit detached from reality. Seams to think we've been burning the fossil fuels at high levels for 200 years. CO2 may have started to spike 200 years ago though.


Fartsong wrote: Stuff your shit, you AGW denier liar whiner!
20-03-2017 21:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century


source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?


Just wanted a number you think is good. So, is the above report a little "deceptive"?

The industrial revolution began in the 1800s, not the 1900s!
20-03-2017 21:52
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
The industrial revolution may have begun 200 years ago, but the rapid increase in man-made CO2 began right after World War II. Before that the increase was primarily natural, but it was still rapid. Why is that??
20-03-2017 21:53
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(562)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century


source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?


Just wanted a number you think is good. So, is the above report a little "deceptive"?

The industrial revolution began in the 1800s, not the 1900s!


Yes, technically true. A more accurate look at things would be to look at fossil fuel usage and the real spike starts in 1950


Fartsong wrote: Stuff your shit, you AGW denier liar whiner!
Attached image:


Edited on 20-03-2017 21:56
20-03-2017 22:23
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century


source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?


Just wanted a number you think is good. So, is the above report a little "deceptive"?

The industrial revolution began in the 1800s, not the 1900s!


Yes, technically true. A more accurate look at things would be to look at fossil fuel usage and the real spike starts in 1950

Or, even better, a graph comparing annual human output of CO2 and the annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere:



Source: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

You can see that annual human emissions have been roughly twice the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1850. About half of the CO2 emitted by humans is absorbed by the land and oceans, while the other half accumulates in the atmosphere.
20-03-2017 23:09
spot
★★★☆☆
(880)
Frescomexico wrote:
The industrial revolution may have begun 200 years ago, but the rapid increase in man-made CO2 began right after World War II. Before that the increase was primarily natural, but it was still rapid. Why is that??


That the increase before World War II was due to primary natural sources is contrary to what I have read and have been lead to believe, and to be honest it does not seem credible. But giving you the benefit of the doubt please share with us, What is the mechanism for this natural rise?

And is there evidence for 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.
20-03-2017 23:14
spot
★★★☆☆
(880)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century


source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?


Just wanted a number you think is good. So, is the above report a little "deceptive"?


If you want people to think the industrial revolution was in 1950 you are being deceptive or/and stupid.


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.
20-03-2017 23:25
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
Frescomexico wrote:
litesong wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:the increase in CO2 concentration cannot be totally due to man since evidently during the recovery from the last big ice age, the CO2 increased by itself.

Recovery from the ice age took thousands of years. man-made C02 power-up took 200+ years. & that is why AGW is dangerous. It is much more rapid that "natural" climate change, which is NOT weather.


You talk as if the "man-made CO2 power-up" has already happened. It has barely begun and we are just guessing with models where it is going and if it is dangerous.


Also our True Believer friends here do not understand that geologic recovery of CO2 and temperatures are NOT accurate as ours would be if the numbers were being purposely counterfeited.

At the very best they are simply averages though the closer to modern times the less errors tend to be in the guesses.

As for our present information there are books written by people involved in high office in NOAA that say specifically that the numbers are pure garbage and that there IS no continued warming. That the pause is still in effect.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/climategate-40-un-ipcc-pause-deniers.html

The take-up again in global warming was a trick performed by ASSUMING temperature data where none existed - the Arctic and Antarctic areas. Well it turns out we did have data after all that tells us a different story:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/climategate-40-un-ipcc-pause-deniers.html

As for the books to read:

https://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740/ref=zg_bs_16053251_35?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6R46FEN1K0RTMZ898PPJ

https://www.amazon.com/Disgrace-Profession-Mark-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0986398330&pd_rd_r=3GNEW0XAC0P5ZYSTVPE3&pd_rd_w=rHwjO&pd_rd_wg=EB2GU&psc=1&refRID=3GNEW0XAC0P5ZYSTVPE3

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0037KM20G?psc=1
20-03-2017 23:29
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century


source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?


Just wanted a number you think is good. So, is the above report a little "deceptive"?

The industrial revolution began in the 1800s, not the 1900s!


Yes, technically true. A more accurate look at things would be to look at fossil fuel usage and the real spike starts in 1950

Or, even better, a graph comparing annual human output of CO2 and the annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere:



Source: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

You can see that annual human emissions have been roughly twice the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1850. About half of the CO2 emitted by humans is absorbed by the land and oceans, while the other half accumulates in the atmosphere.


I suppose that most people would ask you WHY the CO2 emissions of man are growing so rapidly but the atmospheric CO2 isn't. But perhaps you need to ignore that little fact.
20-03-2017 23:38
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century


source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?


Just wanted a number you think is good. So, is the above report a little "deceptive"?

The industrial revolution began in the 1800s, not the 1900s!


Yes, technically true. A more accurate look at things would be to look at fossil fuel usage and the real spike starts in 1950

Or, even better, a graph comparing annual human output of CO2 and the annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere:



Source: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

You can see that annual human emissions have been roughly twice the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1850. About half of the CO2 emitted by humans is absorbed by the land and oceans, while the other half accumulates in the atmosphere.


I suppose that most people would ask you WHY the CO2 emissions of man are growing so rapidly but the atmospheric CO2 isn't. But perhaps you need to ignore that little fact.

Eh? I addressed exactly that point in my post. As I said, about half of the human emissions of CO2 are absorbed by the land and oceans. That's why, for example, the oceans are becoming more acidic.
21-03-2017 03:44
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
Surface Detail wrote:
Eh? I addressed exactly that point in my post. As I said, about half of the human emissions of CO2 are absorbed by the land and oceans. That's why, for example, the oceans are becoming more acidic.


I can think of nothing more silly than to claim that the ocean is getting more acidic.

Firstly the oceans are a mildly alkaline solution. Any change towards a neutral solution would be referred to as neutralizing.

Secondly the ocean is already saturated with CO2 which is why as the atmosphere heats it "boils" CO2 into the atmosphere. Likewise cooling causes it to take up CO2.

If you remember your grade school chemistry the atmosphere was originally some 40% CO2. It was absorbed by the oceans and plants changed part of it into the 21% O2 presently in the atmosphere, and some small part into carbon deposits - coal, oil etc. We do not have conditions anywhere on the Earth today where carbon deposits can build up because plants cannot grow fast enough or lush enough. Instead they rot and are consumed by bacteria which convert it into atmospheric CO2 again. This is called the cycle of life.

Because some MORON says something doesn't mean you have to repeat it without even knowing what it's supposed to mean.

There ARE no natural "carbon sinks" that is what is so crazy about all the claims of the alarmists. How is the carbon consumption so damn high and the atmospheric CO2 changing so slowly. Why is the CO2 input into the atmosphere increasing exponentially and the increase in atmospheric CO2 a slow linear rise?

Suggestion - why hasn't ANYONE talked about the real carbon sink - PLANTS. Increasing plankton and algae?
21-03-2017 04:05
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The industrial revolution may have begun 200 years ago, but the rapid increase in man-made CO2 began right after World War II. Before that the increase was primarily natural, but it was still rapid. Why is that??


That the increase before World War II was due to primary natural sources is contrary to what I have read and have been lead to believe, and to be honest it does not seem credible. But giving you the benefit of the doubt please share with us, What is the mechanism for this natural rise?

And is there evidence for this?


Read the NASA info on CO2: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital signs/
Carbon-dioxide/
21-03-2017 13:07
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
litesong wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:the increase in CO2 concentration cannot be totally due to man since evidently during the recovery from the last big ice age, the CO2 increased by itself.

Recovery from the ice age took thousands of years. man-made C02 power-up took 200+ years. & that is why AGW is dangerous. It is much more rapid that "natural" climate change, which is NOT weather.


You talk as if the "man-made CO2 power-up" has already happened. It has barely begun and we are just guessing with models where it is going and if it is dangerous.


Also our True Believer friends here do not understand that geologic recovery of CO2 and temperatures are NOT accurate as ours would be if the numbers were being purposely counterfeited.

At the very best they are simply averages though the closer to modern times the less errors tend to be in the guesses.

As for our present information there are books written by people involved in high office in NOAA that say specifically that the numbers are pure garbage and that there IS no continued warming. That the pause is still in effect.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/climategate-40-un-ipcc-pause-deniers.html

The take-up again in global warming was a trick performed by ASSUMING temperature data where none existed - the Arctic and Antarctic areas. Well it turns out we did have data after all that tells us a different story:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/climategate-40-un-ipcc-pause-deniers.html

As for the books to read:

https://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740/ref=zg_bs_16053251_35?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6R46FEN1K0RTMZ898PPJ

https://www.amazon.com/Disgrace-Profession-Mark-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0986398330&pd_rd_r=3GNEW0XAC0P5ZYSTVPE3&pd_rd_w=rHwjO&pd_rd_wg=EB2GU&psc=1&refRID=3GNEW0XAC0P5ZYSTVPE3

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0037KM20G?psc=1


Hahahhah! Once more you go straight to mindlessly parroting a junkscience conspiracy blog by a non-scientist. The Hockeyschtick? Really? That's even worse than WUWT.

Even WUWT doesn't buy into a lot of THS ridiculous pseudoscience claims that the 'greenhouse' effect doesn't even exist.

Then you link to that NR hack Mark Steyn? Are you not even aware he is getting his arse sued off for defamation, and he's losing?

You just keep proving you are a desperate gullible scientifically illiterate ideologically driven blithering idiot.

Sorry mate, the science just isn't on your side. Neither is reality.
Edited on 21-03-2017 13:08
21-03-2017 14:05
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Frescomexico wrote:
OK, here's what I have gotten from the original subject "So is the feedback positive or negative", both through posts to this thread other searches:

The predominant opinion is that feedback on global temperature rise due to CO2 increase is that it is positive. This is primarily due to water vapor greenhouse effect. Because of this effect, the moderate temperature increase due to CO2 alone is leveraged to harmful levels. Ice core studies indicate that this phenomena accompanied past recoveries from ice ages. There is no doubt that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing and some (most?) of this is caused by mankind. Why this phenomenon also occurred after ice ages, without help from mankind is not clear to me.

There still remains a body of evidence that the feedback is negative, and/or that the present warming is caused by forcings unrelated to CO2. Some of this is the UAH satellite measurement of radiation entering and leaving the planet, the Milankovitch Cycles, and the "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback".

I guess this, in a nutshell, is why there still is a climate debate.


Your second paragraph is just plain wrong. Also using terms like "recovery" from an ice age shows you just repeat memes from non-science sources. Where is this "body of evidence that the feedback is negative"???

1. UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville) don't "measure radiation entering and leaving the planet". All UAH do is take the satellite measurements of radiance (brightness) of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere then apply their own algorithms, models, adjustments for satellite drift, stratospheric cooling etc to infer atmospheric temperatures (not surface). RSS are the other group who do this with the same satellite observations.

(UAH's Spencer and Christie have a long history of having to have their mistakes corrected by other scientists since the 1990's when they got the sign wrong for diurnal satellite drift/orbital decay and claimed the atmosphere was cooling not warming. They still have not published their paper on their version 6 datasets, despite using the data publicly for about 18mths. Mears and Wentz from RSS have more recently updated some of their datasets and published their paper on methods before releasing their data. http://www.remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated )


Perhaps you should look up "earth's energy budget" and read some of the papers
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=earth%27s+energy+budget&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Or read about these projects:

Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES)
Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE)


2. The warming since the pre-industrial era has nothing to do with the Milankovich cycles. The timing is (~22k, 40k, 100k) is just way too long. Here's a really brief summary.

http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/cryo/cryosphere/topics/ice_age/compare.html
Besides, where the earth currently is in the Milankovitch cycles, we should be cooling, not warming.

3. Shows once again that you haven't even read the IPCC reports. See chapter 8 of the AR5 WG1 science basis report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Did you just see that paper mentioned on a blog or something and decided to chuck it in here without even reading it?
Edited on 21-03-2017 14:10
21-03-2017 14:15
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Ceist wrote:
e conspiracy sources, yet flat out deny/reject evidence-based facts and science.
And yes, of course climate change can cause both flooding and drought. Why would you think it wouldn't?


Because I'm not gullible.

Show me your "fact based science" that proves me wrong.

Yeah, you're gullible. And lazy too. You want me to spoonfeed you easily available information? Take some responsibility for your own education.
21-03-2017 14:25
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Frescomexico wrote:
With respect to the recent floods and droughts, these are examples of weather, not climate. The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

Increase/changes in severity, frequency, duration or timing of floods/droughts is related to climate change.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/understanding-link-between-climate-change-and-extreme-weather

Trump's EPA science denier Pruitt or House PseudoScience committee "Christian Scientist" luddite Lamar Smith will probably eventually take this down and replace it with a link to a Breitbart or DailyMail UK tabloid piece or maybe a quote from the Bible about Noah's Ark and the Flood.
Edited on 21-03-2017 14:46
21-03-2017 14:31
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Eh? I addressed exactly that point in my post. As I said, about half of the human emissions of CO2 are absorbed by the land and oceans. That's why, for example, the oceans are becoming more acidic.


I can think of nothing more silly than to claim that the ocean is getting more acidic.

Firstly the oceans are a mildly alkaline solution. Any change towards a neutral solution would be referred to as neutralizing.

Secondly the ocean is already saturated with CO2 which is why as the atmosphere heats it "boils" CO2 into the atmosphere. Likewise cooling causes it to take up CO2.

If you remember your grade school chemistry the atmosphere was originally some 40% CO2. It was absorbed by the oceans and plants changed part of it into the 21% O2 presently in the atmosphere, and some small part into carbon deposits - coal, oil etc. We do not have conditions anywhere on the Earth today where carbon deposits can build up because plants cannot grow fast enough or lush enough. Instead they rot and are consumed by bacteria which convert it into atmospheric CO2 again. This is called the cycle of life.

Because some MORON says something doesn't mean you have to repeat it without even knowing what it's supposed to mean.

There ARE no natural "carbon sinks" that is what is so crazy about all the claims of the alarmists. How is the carbon consumption so damn high and the atmospheric CO2 changing so slowly. Why is the CO2 input into the atmosphere increasing exponentially and the increase in atmospheric CO2 a slow linear rise?

Suggestion - why hasn't ANYONE talked about the real carbon sink - PLANTS. Increasing plankton and algae?


"Because some MORON says something doesn't mean you have to repeat it without even knowing what it's supposed to mean."

Yet you do. Over and over again. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. You never actually refer to or cite any published evidence-based research. You just idiotically parrot what other moron non-scientists on junkscience conspiracy blogs say and you never bother to check the claims.

I'd tell you to try reading some of the literature, or even some high-school textbooks, but your reading comprehension is probably more at the level of reading the back of a cereal box.

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=carbon+cycle&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=ocean+acidification&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&oq=ocean+acid

Or maybe you could start with NASA's Climate Kids website- it's extremely basic and aimed at about 7 year olds, so it might be a little too sophisticated for complete morons like you:

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/ocean/

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/carbon/
Edited on 21-03-2017 14:45
21-03-2017 15:10
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The industrial revolution may have begun 200 years ago, but the rapid increase in man-made CO2 began right after World War II. Before that the increase was primarily natural, but it was still rapid. Why is that??


That the increase before World War II was due to primary natural sources is contrary to what I have read and have been lead to believe, and to be honest it does not seem credible. But giving you the benefit of the doubt please share with us, What is the mechanism for this natural rise?

And is there evidence for this?


Read the NASA info on CO2: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital signs/
Carbon-dioxide/


That doesn't say anything about 1940s-1970s cooling. It's just an extremely basic overview.

Try this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/

and

http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf

or gosh.... the IPCC Working Group 1 'scientific basis' reports, where all these questions are addressed. Search for aerosols, sulphates, Mt Agung etc

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

Seriously, why are you guys even pretending you have a clue about this topic and continue trying to make claims "that scientists don't know stuff" (projecting your own ignorance) if you haven't even read the IPCC technical reports and the cited literature? Or even read a freaken' basic University undergrad level textbook?
Edited on 21-03-2017 16:04
21-03-2017 15:16
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
Ceist wrote:quote]

Hahahhah! Once more you go straight to mindlessly parroting a junkscience conspiracy blog by a non-scientist. The Hockeyschtick? Really? That's even worse than WUWT.

Even WUWT doesn't buy into a lot of THS ridiculous pseudoscience claims that the 'greenhouse' effect doesn't even exist.

Then you link to that NR hack Mark Steyn? Are you not even aware he is getting his arse sued off for defamation, and he's losing?

You just keep proving you are a desperate gullible scientifically illiterate ideologically driven blithering idiot.

Sorry mate, the science just isn't on your side. Neither is reality.


And once again you claim that a book written by one of the NOAA scientists IN CHARGE of the data at NOAA is "junk science" because the mention of it is on a site you don't like.

Please introduce yourself to me sometime. I'm just a harmless old man.
21-03-2017 15:44
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
And once again you claim that a book written by one of the NOAA scientists IN CHARGE of the data at NOAA is "junk science" because the mention of it is on a site you don't like.

Please introduce yourself to me sometime. I'm just a harmless old man.


What "book"?

Mark Steyn is not a NASA scientist, you idiot.

Here's Mark Steyn. Check out his 'groovy' pussycat song. Not.

http://www.therebel.media/video_mark_steyn_sings_a_song_for_halloween

Steyn is a music critic and an opinion writer on National Review Online (well he was, he's been sacked)

Steyn is so stupid he wrote a trashy hit piece book on Michael Mann while being sued by Mann for defamation for some false claims and accusations he made in a an earlier trashy article on National Review Online- just compounding the malicious intent part of defamation law. Needless to say, Mann is winning the case.

Tim Ball is also not a NASA scientist.

Ball is also not a 'climatologist' as he claims. He's a retired geographer, has not been a practicing scientist for years, never published much of any worth, and is known as paid promoter of oil and gas companies.

Funnily enough, Tim Ball actually tried to sue a scientist for defamation (who wrote that Ball had lied about his academic background and professional reputation) but Ball had to drop his suit because it was shown in court that Ball HAD lied about his academic background and professional reputation.


Tim Ball is a fringe nutter conspiracy theorist- a 'sky dragon slayer' who rejects basic physics. He was lead author in a nutty pseudoscience book "Slaying the Sky Dragon" with a handful of other nutters, most of whom weren't even scientists of any kind.

It's not surprising you blindly worship stupid people who like to lie.

Whats even funnier is that you didn't even read the HS conspiracy blog post you linked to as it didn't mention any 'books' by a NASA scientist.

Really? How thick are you? Thick as two short Plancks

You remind of Monty Pythons armless, legless idiotic Black Knight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Edited on 21-03-2017 16:33
21-03-2017 16:50
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
And once again you claim that a book written by one of the NOAA scientists IN CHARGE of the data at NOAA is "junk science" because the mention of it is on a site you don't like.

Please introduce yourself to me sometime. I'm just a harmless old man.


What "book"?

Mark Steyn is not a NASA scientist, you idiot.

Here's Mark Steyn. Check out his 'groovy' pussycat song. Not.

http://www.therebel.media/video_mark_steyn_sings_a_song_for_halloween

Steyn is a music critic and an opinion writer on National Review Online (well he was, he's been sacked)

Steyn is so stupid he wrote a trashy hit piece book on Michael Mann while being sued by Mann for defamation for some false claims and accusations he made in a an earlier trashy article on National Review Online- just compounding the malicious intent part of defamation law. Needless to say, Mann is winning the case.

Tim Ball is also not a NASA scientist.

Ball is also not a 'climatologist' as he claims. He's a retired geographer, has not been a practicing scientist for years, never published much of any worth, and is known as paid promoter of oil and gas companies.

Funnily enough, Tim Ball actually tried to sue a scientist for defamation (who wrote that Ball had lied about his academic background and professional reputation) but Ball had to drop his suit because it was shown in court that Ball HAD lied about his academic background and professional reputation.


Tim Ball is a fringe nutter conspiracy theorist- a 'sky dragon slayer' who rejects basic physics. He was lead author in a nutty pseudoscience book "Slaying the Sky Dragon" with a handful of other nutters, most of whom weren't even scientists of any kind.

It's not surprising you blindly worship stupid people who like to lie.

Whats even funnier is that you didn't even read the HS conspiracy blog post you linked to as it didn't mention any 'books' by a NASA scientist.

Really? How thick are you? Thick as two short Plancks

You remind of Monty Pythons armless, legless idiotic Black Knight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4


So without reading the book you have both discounted it and decreed it's author not only to be a liar but not a "climate scientist" despite the fact that there is no such science and all such are self identified. Interesting.

And yet the data NOAA used to calculate the global warming was deleted. And when data that was recovered was calculated it showed NO WARMING.

[Karlen] I have in my studies of temperatures also checked a number of areas using data from NASA. One, in my mind interesting study, includes all the 13 stations with long and decent continuously records north of 65 deg N.

The pattern is the same as for the Nordic countries. This diagram only shows 11-yr means of individual stations. A few stations such as Verhojans and Svalbard indicate a recent mean 11-year temperature increase up to 0.5 deg C above the late 1930s. Verhojansk, shows this increase but the temperature has after the peak temperature decreased with about 0.3 deg C during the last few years. The majority of the stations show that the recent temperatures are similar to the one in the late 1930s.

Wibjörn Karlén (born 26 August 1937 in Kristine, Kopparberg County, Sweden), Ph.D., is a professor emeritus of physical geography and quaternary geology at Stockholm University, Sweden. In an article which describes Karlén as a paleoclimatologist, he is quoted as saying: "One of the big problems with trying to determine long-term temperature changes, is that weather records only go back to about 1860. By relying on statistical reconstruction of the last 1000 years, using only the temperature patterns of the last 140 years instead of actual temperature readings, the IPCC report and Summary missed both a major cooling period as well as a significant warming trend during that millennium."[1] Karlén has also criticized the mainstream media for "spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."[2] He was also named in a 2007 minority report of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as one of 400 "prominent scientists" who were said to dispute global warming.[3] In 2010, he predicted that natural climate changes, caused to a large degree by the sun's activity, would more likely make the climate colder than warmer in the next decades.[4] He is a contributing author to the Fraser Institute 2007 Independent Summary for Policymakers. Karlén is a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

And you are a moron of the first water.
21-03-2017 23:25
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
And once again you claim that a book written by one of the NOAA scientists IN CHARGE of the data at NOAA is "junk science" because the mention of it is on a site you don't like.

Please introduce yourself to me sometime. I'm just a harmless old man.


What "book"?

Mark Steyn is not a NASA scientist, you idiot.

Here's Mark Steyn. Check out his 'groovy' pussycat song. Not.

http://www.therebel.media/video_mark_steyn_sings_a_song_for_halloween

Steyn is a music critic and an opinion writer on National Review Online (well he was, he's been sacked)

Steyn is so stupid he wrote a trashy hit piece book on Michael Mann while being sued by Mann for defamation for some false claims and accusations he made in a an earlier trashy article on National Review Online- just compounding the malicious intent part of defamation law. Needless to say, Mann is winning the case.

Tim Ball is also not a NASA scientist.

Ball is also not a 'climatologist' as he claims. He's a retired geographer, has not been a practicing scientist for years, never published much of any worth, and is known as paid promoter of oil and gas companies.

Funnily enough, Tim Ball actually tried to sue a scientist for defamation (who wrote that Ball had lied about his academic background and professional reputation) but Ball had to drop his suit because it was shown in court that Ball HAD lied about his academic background and professional reputation.


Tim Ball is a fringe nutter conspiracy theorist- a 'sky dragon slayer' who rejects basic physics. He was lead author in a nutty pseudoscience book "Slaying the Sky Dragon" with a handful of other nutters, most of whom weren't even scientists of any kind.

It's not surprising you blindly worship stupid people who like to lie.

Whats even funnier is that you didn't even read the HS conspiracy blog post you linked to as it didn't mention any 'books' by a NASA scientist.

Really? How thick are you? Thick as two short Plancks

You remind of Monty Pythons armless, legless idiotic Black Knight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4


So without reading the book you have both discounted it and decreed it's author not only to be a liar but not a "climate scientist" despite the fact that there is no such science and all such are self identified. Interesting.

And yet the data NOAA used to calculate the global warming was deleted. And when data that was recovered was calculated it showed NO WARMING.

[Karlen] I have in my studies of temperatures also checked a number of areas using data from NASA. One, in my mind interesting study, includes all the 13 stations with long and decent continuously records north of 65 deg N.

The pattern is the same as for the Nordic countries. This diagram only shows 11-yr means of individual stations. A few stations such as Verhojans and Svalbard indicate a recent mean 11-year temperature increase up to 0.5 deg C above the late 1930s. Verhojansk, shows this increase but the temperature has after the peak temperature decreased with about 0.3 deg C during the last few years. The majority of the stations show that the recent temperatures are similar to the one in the late 1930s.

Wibjörn Karlén (born 26 August 1937 in Kristine, Kopparberg County, Sweden), Ph.D., is a professor emeritus of physical geography and quaternary geology at Stockholm University, Sweden. In an article which describes Karlén as a paleoclimatologist, he is quoted as saying: "One of the big problems with trying to determine long-term temperature changes, is that weather records only go back to about 1860. By relying on statistical reconstruction of the last 1000 years, using only the temperature patterns of the last 140 years instead of actual temperature readings, the IPCC report and Summary missed both a major cooling period as well as a significant warming trend during that millennium."[1] Karlén has also criticized the mainstream media for "spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."[2] He was also named in a 2007 minority report of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as one of 400 "prominent scientists" who were said to dispute global warming.[3] In 2010, he predicted that natural climate changes, caused to a large degree by the sun's activity, would more likely make the climate colder than warmer in the next decades.[4] He is a contributing author to the Fraser Institute 2007 Independent Summary for Policymakers. Karlén is a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

And you are a moron of the first water.


What book? What "NASA scientist"?

You linked to a HS conspiracy blog post which had no link to a book by any NASA scientist 'in charge of the data!"

You linked to 2 books on Amazon by Mark Steyn and Tim Ball, neither of whom are NASA scientists.

Now you copy and paste something from some other source with no link, about someone who is still not a NASA scientist.

Where IS this mysterious "NASA scientist in charge of all the data!"?

You're so conspiracy addled and brain dead, you can't even keep up with your own ridiculous lies.
Edited on 21-03-2017 23:32
21-03-2017 23:35
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
Ceist wrote: You're so conspiracy addled and brain dead, you can't even keep up with your own ridiculous lies.


I must say that as the evidence builds up the tears start flowing from your eyes in a continuous stream.

I don't have to prove anything to you. I don't have to give you ANY references. If you do not wish to read the books I never recommended them to you in the first place and you're pissing all over yourself because more and more people have your number and that of people like you.

Cry me a river.
22-03-2017 00:52
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote: You're so conspiracy addled and brain dead, you can't even keep up with your own ridiculous lies.


I must say that as the evidence builds up the tears start flowing from your eyes in a continuous stream.

I don't have to prove anything to you. I don't have to give you ANY references. If you do not wish to read the books I never recommended them to you in the first place and you're pissing all over yourself because more and more people have your number and that of people like you.

Cry me a river.


That's okay, you've already proven to me that you are a conspiracy addled scientifically illiterate moron who just mindlessly repeats what other scientifically illiterate morons and nutters say.

If you need to live in some fact-free alternate reality swallowing and regurgitating anything you read on the internet to make yourself feel good, go for it.

I'll stick with evidence-based science, and you can stick with your evidence-free conspiracies and junkscience.
22-03-2017 04:29
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Ceist wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The industrial revolution may have begun 200 years ago, but the rapid increase in man-made CO2 began right after World War II. Before that the increase was primarily natural, but it was still rapid. Why is that??


That the increase before World War II was due to primary natural sources is contrary to what I have read and have been lead to believe, and to be honest it does not seem credible. But giving you the benefit of the doubt please share with us, What is the mechanism for this natural rise?

And is there evidence for this?


Read the NASA info on CO2: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital signs/
Carbon-dioxide/


That doesn't say anything about 1940s-1970s cooling. It's just an extremely basic overview.

Try this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/

and

http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf

or gosh.... the IPCC Working Group 1 'scientific basis' reports, where all these questions are addressed. Search for aerosols, sulphates, Mt Agung etc

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

Seriously, why are you guys even pretending you have a clue about this topic and continue trying to make claims "that scientists don't know stuff" (projecting your own ignorance) if you haven't even read the IPCC technical reports and the cited literature? Or even read a freaken' basic University undergrad level textbook?


I don't know what your comments about the cooling in the 1940s - 1970 has to do with the increase in CO2 after World War II. I am talking CO2 and you are talking temperature.
22-03-2017 05:37
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Ceist wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
OK, here's what I have gotten from the original subject "So is the feedback positive or negative", both through posts to this thread other searches:

The predominant opinion is that feedback on global temperature rise due to CO2 increase is that it is positive. This is primarily due to water vapor greenhouse effect. Because of this effect, the moderate temperature increase due to CO2 alone is leveraged to harmful levels. Ice core studies indicate that this phenomena accompanied past recoveries from ice ages. There is no doubt that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing and some (most?) of this is caused by mankind. Why this phenomenon also occurred after ice ages, without help from mankind is not clear to me.

There still remains a body of evidence that the feedback is negative, and/or that the present warming is caused by forcings unrelated to CO2. Some of this is the UAH satellite measurement of radiation entering and leaving the planet, the Milankovitch Cycles, and the "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback".

I guess this, in a nutshell, is why there still is a climate debate.


Your second paragraph is just plain wrong. Also using terms like "recovery" from an ice age shows you just repeat memes from non-science sources. Where is this "body of evidence that the feedback is negative"???

1. UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville) don't "measure radiation entering and leaving the planet". All UAH do is take the satellite measurements of radiance (brightness) of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere then apply their own algorithms, models, adjustments for satellite drift, stratospheric cooling etc to infer atmospheric temperatures (not surface). RSS are the other group who do this with the same satellite observations.

(UAH's Spencer and Christie have a long history of having to have their mistakes corrected by other scientists since the 1990's when they got the sign wrong for diurnal satellite drift/orbital decay and claimed the atmosphere was cooling not warming. They still have not published their paper on their version 6 datasets, despite using the data publicly for about 18mths. Mears and Wentz from RSS have more recently updated some of their datasets and published their paper on methods before releasing their data. http://www.remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated )


Perhaps you should look up "earth's energy budget" and read some of the papers
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=earth%27s+energy+budget&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Or read about these projects:

Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES)
Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE)


2. The warming since the pre-industrial era has nothing to do with the Milankovich cycles. The timing is (~22k, 40k, 100k) is just way too long. Here's a really brief summary.

http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/cryo/cryosphere/topics/ice_age/compare.html
Besides, where the earth currently is in the Milankovitch cycles, we should be cooling, not warming.

3. Shows once again that you haven't even read the IPCC reports. See chapter 8 of the AR5 WG1 science basis report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Did you just see that paper mentioned on a blog or something and decided to chuck it in here without even reading it?


1. Dr. Spencer seems to think he can measure radiation leaving the planet as witnessed in his statement: "That number (3.3) thus represents the magic boundary between positive and negative feedback. If satellites measure more than 3.3 Watts per square meter given off by the Earth per degree of global warming, that is evidence of negative feedback. If the number is less than 3.3, that is positive feedback. If the number reached zero, that would correspond to a borderline unstable climate system. The 20 climate models tracked by the IPCC have feedbacks ranging from about 0.9 to 1.9 (all corresponding to positive feedback since they are less than 3.3)."

Also almost all scientists have a history of having their mistakes corrected by other scientists. Nobody is perfect. That is how science progresses.

2. The warming since the pre-industrial era probably is due to CO2's greenhouse effect. That effect is not being contested. It is the feedback amount and direction that is in question.

3. Your right on this one. Feels good, doesn't it?
22-03-2017 10:56
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
OK, here's what I have gotten from the original subject "So is the feedback positive or negative", both through posts to this thread other searches:

The predominant opinion is that feedback on global temperature rise due to CO2 increase is that it is positive. This is primarily due to water vapor greenhouse effect. Because of this effect, the moderate temperature increase due to CO2 alone is leveraged to harmful levels. Ice core studies indicate that this phenomena accompanied past recoveries from ice ages. There is no doubt that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing and some (most?) of this is caused by mankind. Why this phenomenon also occurred after ice ages, without help from mankind is not clear to me.

There still remains a body of evidence that the feedback is negative, and/or that the present warming is caused by forcings unrelated to CO2. Some of this is the UAH satellite measurement of radiation entering and leaving the planet, the Milankovitch Cycles, and the "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback".

I guess this, in a nutshell, is why there still is a climate debate.


Your second paragraph is just plain wrong. Also using terms like "recovery" from an ice age shows you just repeat memes from non-science sources. Where is this "body of evidence that the feedback is negative"???

1. UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville) don't "measure radiation entering and leaving the planet". All UAH do is take the satellite measurements of radiance (brightness) of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere then apply their own algorithms, models, adjustments for satellite drift, stratospheric cooling etc to infer atmospheric temperatures (not surface). RSS are the other group who do this with the same satellite observations.

(UAH's Spencer and Christie have a long history of having to have their mistakes corrected by other scientists since the 1990's when they got the sign wrong for diurnal satellite drift/orbital decay and claimed the atmosphere was cooling not warming. They still have not published their paper on their version 6 datasets, despite using the data publicly for about 18mths. Mears and Wentz from RSS have more recently updated some of their datasets and published their paper on methods before releasing their data. http://www.remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated )


Perhaps you should look up "earth's energy budget" and read some of the papers
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=earth%27s+energy+budget&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Or read about these projects:

Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES)
Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE)


2. The warming since the pre-industrial era has nothing to do with the Milankovich cycles. The timing is (~22k, 40k, 100k) is just way too long. Here's a really brief summary.

http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/cryo/cryosphere/topics/ice_age/compare.html
Besides, where the earth currently is in the Milankovitch cycles, we should be cooling, not warming.

3. Shows once again that you haven't even read the IPCC reports. See chapter 8 of the AR5 WG1 science basis report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Did you just see that paper mentioned on a blog or something and decided to chuck it in here without even reading it?


1. Dr. Spencer seems to think he can measure radiation leaving the planet as witnessed in his statement: "That number (3.3) thus represents the magic boundary between positive and negative feedback. If satellites measure more than 3.3 Watts per square meter given off by the Earth per degree of global warming, that is evidence of negative feedback. If the number is less than 3.3, that is positive feedback. If the number reached zero, that would correspond to a borderline unstable climate system. The 20 climate models tracked by the IPCC have feedbacks ranging from about 0.9 to 1.9 (all corresponding to positive feedback since they are less than 3.3)."

Also almost all scientists have a history of having their mistakes corrected by other scientists. Nobody is perfect. That is how science progresses.

2. The warming since the pre-industrial era probably is due to CO2's greenhouse effect. That effect is not being contested. It is the feedback amount and direction that is in question.

3. Your right on this one. Feels good, doesn't it?


Spencer isn't referring to work that UAH do. The NASA satellite data they use at UAH doesn't have anything to do with the satellite equipment and data measuring incoming shortwave and outgoing longwave radiation from the planet. If you knew anything about the body of literature on this, Spencer and Christie seem to have got it wrong more often than right and have been very slow to correct their mistakes or publish their methods.
(Their religious beliefs that humans can't cause climate change seem to get in the way)

By the way, can you provide a link to your sources in future, so that others can see you're quoting from a blog post, not a published paper?

Doesn't matter anyway. I'm too busy with work and study for the next few weeks to waste time on this little forum playing with the handful of resident nutty science deniers who are too lazy, close minded and conspiracy addicted to learn anything, or do any research or fact-checking before making ludicrous scientifically illiterate claims parroted from junkscience blogs.
Edited on 22-03-2017 11:08
22-03-2017 14:48
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
Ceist wrote:
Doesn't matter anyway. I'm too busy with work and study for the next few weeks to waste time on this little forum playing with the handful of resident nutty science deniers who are too lazy, close minded and conspiracy addicted to learn anything, or do any research or fact-checking before making ludicrous scientifically illiterate claims parroted from junkscience blogs.


It isn't any surprise that someone who writes in such a manner turns out to be a student. No doubt working one your high school diploma. But luckily someone that is so insulting will eventually voice your substandard thoughts out loud and we won't have to skip over them for a long time while you are undergoing the plastic surgery to repair the damage your mouth has done.
23-03-2017 04:41
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
I wondered how someone had enough time to read and catalog all of those research papers, albeit primarily one side of the debate. But what school teaches such condescension?
23-03-2017 05:28
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(63)
I would just want to note, maybe I will write something more explicitely on this at a later point, that the most dominant greenhouse gas (and feedback factor) is water vapor. It increases with temperature, and thus is not only a multiplicator with regard to global warming, it also most significant in tropical regions. It there, where it drives up the greenhouse effect, in this also the place, where the greenhouse effect is at its lowest!!!
23-03-2017 08:13
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
This observer is coming to you from North Latitude 20 degrees, where I have lived since 1994. During that time, I have seen no significant change in regional climate.
23-03-2017 09:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
Leitwolf wrote:
I would just want to note, maybe I will write something more explicitely on this at a later point, that the most dominant greenhouse gas (and feedback factor) is water vapor. It increases with temperature, and thus is not only a multiplicator with regard to global warming, it also most significant in tropical regions. It there, where it drives up the greenhouse effect, in this also the place, where the greenhouse effect is at its lowest!!!

The greenhouse effect is indeed strongest in the tropics. The increase in the greenhouse effect over the last decades is, however, strongest at the poles.
23-03-2017 13:28
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Surface Detail wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
I would just want to note, maybe I will write something more explicitely on this at a later point, that the most dominant greenhouse gas (and feedback factor) is water vapor. It increases with temperature, and thus is not only a multiplicator with regard to global warming, it also most significant in tropical regions. It there, where it drives up the greenhouse effect, in this also the place, where the greenhouse effect is at its lowest!!!

The greenhouse effect is indeed strongest in the tropics. The increase in the greenhouse effect over the last decades is, however, strongest at the poles.


That is very interesting. How is the location of the greenhouse effect, and the increase in greenhouse effect pinpointed?
23-03-2017 15:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
I would just want to note, maybe I will write something more explicitely on this at a later point, that the most dominant greenhouse gas (and feedback factor) is water vapor. It increases with temperature, and thus is not only a multiplicator with regard to global warming, it also most significant in tropical regions. It there, where it drives up the greenhouse effect, in this also the place, where the greenhouse effect is at its lowest!!!

The greenhouse effect is indeed strongest in the tropics. The increase in the greenhouse effect over the last decades is, however, strongest at the poles.


That is very interesting. How is the location of the greenhouse effect, and the increase in greenhouse effect pinpointed?

The greenhouse effect due to water vapour is, obviously, strongest where there is the most water vapour. If the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases, as is the case in the Arctic, then the greenhouse effect that it causes will also increase. It's not rocket science.
23-03-2017 15:26
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
Surface Detail wrote:
That is very interesting. How is the location of the greenhouse effect, and the increase in greenhouse effect pinpointed?

The greenhouse effect due to water vapour is, obviously, strongest where there is the most water vapour. If the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases, as is the case in the Arctic, then the greenhouse effect that it causes will also increase. It's not rocket science.[/quote]

Again really showing your stuff

https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/forecast/modelclimate/arctic-archipelago_canada_9062327
23-03-2017 15:38
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The greenhouse effect due to water vapour is, obviously, strongest where there is the most water vapour. If the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases, as is the case in the Arctic, then the greenhouse effect that it causes will also increase. It's not rocket science.


Again really showing your stuff

https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/forecast/modelclimate/arctic-archipelago_canada_9062327

Sorry, are you trying to make some point (other than demonstrating your continuing inability to quote posts properly)?
23-03-2017 16:15
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(63)
Note to myself: do not post when drunk!
Ok .. to straighten this up: the tropics should naturally be the warmest spot on earth, because they receive more solar radiation than any other place. So far it is a no-brainer.
Now we know that as a perfect black body earth should have 280°K on average, and it is about 8-9°K warmer than this. As earth is a sphere we divide the amount of radiation it would receive as a disc by 4, because obviously a sphere has 4times the surface of a disc with the same diameter. So it is 1366/4 = 341.5.
On the equator however every m2 receives roughly 1366W/PI = 435W/m2. Skipping the complicated formulas, we can derive (435/341.5)^0.25 * 280 = 297.5°K, or 24.5°C.
Average equatorial temperatures are about 27°C or so? So anyway we put it, the GHE is in fact at its lowest where it should be at its highest, if water vapor was the most significant greenhouse gas. In science we call that a falsification.
23-03-2017 16:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
Leitwolf wrote:
Note to myself: do not post when drunk!
Ok .. to straighten this up: the tropics should naturally be the warmest spot on earth, because they receive more solar radiation than any other place. So far it is a no-brainer.
Now we know that as a perfect black body earth should have 280°K on average, and it is about 8-9°K warmer than this. As earth is a sphere we divide the amount of radiation it would receive as a disc by 4, because obviously a sphere has 4times the surface of a disc with the same diameter. So it is 1366/4 = 341.5.
On the equator however every m2 receives roughly 1366W/PI = 435W/m2. Skipping the complicated formulas, we can derive (435/341.5)^0.25 * 280 = 297.5°K, or 24.5°C.
Average equatorial temperatures are about 27°C or so? So anyway we put it, the GHE is in fact at its lowest where it should be at its highest, if water vapor was the most significant greenhouse gas. In science we call that a falsification.

But the Earth isn't a perfect black body.
23-03-2017 16:50
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
Leitwolf wrote:
Note to myself: do not post when drunk!
Ok .. to straighten this up: the tropics should naturally be the warmest spot on earth, because they receive more solar radiation than any other place. So far it is a no-brainer.
Now we know that as a perfect black body earth should have 280°K on average, and it is about 8-9°K warmer than this. As earth is a sphere we divide the amount of radiation it would receive as a disc by 4, because obviously a sphere has 4times the surface of a disc with the same diameter. So it is 1366/4 = 341.5.
On the equator however every m2 receives roughly 1366W/PI = 435W/m2. Skipping the complicated formulas, we can derive (435/341.5)^0.25 * 280 = 297.5°K, or 24.5°C.
Average equatorial temperatures are about 27°C or so? So anyway we put it, the GHE is in fact at its lowest where it should be at its highest, if water vapor was the most significant greenhouse gas. In science we call that a falsification.


I think that you should remember that the Earth is also cooling from it's liquid interior so that temperatures of the Earth should be a bit warmer than from just the absorption of the emissions of the sun.

Because most of the energy from the Sun is moved about by simple conduction it appears mathematically that the atmosphere is much deeper than in fact it is. Remember that there are a couple of radiation "holes" in the atmosphere mainly around 9 and 11 um if memory serves.

So all it would take is for some areas to cool down to radiate and others to warm up a bit if radiation were a significant source of direct cooling.
RE: Rocket Science23-03-2017 20:14
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
I would just want to note, maybe I will write something more explicitely on this at a later point, that the most dominant greenhouse gas (and feedback factor) is water vapor. It increases with temperature, and thus is not only a multiplicator with regard to global warming, it also most significant in tropical regions. It there, where it drives up the greenhouse effect, in this also the place, where the greenhouse effect is at its lowest!!!

The greenhouse effect is indeed strongest in the tropics. The increase in the greenhouse effect over the last decades is, however, strongest at the poles.


That is very interesting. How is the location of the greenhouse effect, and the increase in greenhouse effect pinpointed?

The greenhouse effect due to water vapour is, obviously, strongest where there is the most water vapour. If the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases, as is the case in the Arctic, then the greenhouse effect that it causes will also increase. It's not rocket science.


Continuing with the non-rocket science, why is the North Pole following your explanation, but the South Pole is not?
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/polarwarming.htm
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate So Is The Feedback Positive Or Negative?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Arctic sea ice loss, negative or positive feedback?4608-08-2017 23:21
The most debated feedback / forcings?129-04-2017 01:37
Climate Effect of CO2 Alone Without Feedback.2512-03-2017 00:25
Positive effects of global warming3505-12-2014 12:26
▲ 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