Remember me
▼ Content

It's In The Math, It's Not But Should Be


It's In The Math, It's Not But Should Be05-06-2017 17:05
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
With climate change, if CO2 is warming our planet it should be observable by showing a basic relationship in temperature. The difference between the average night time and day time temperature shows that our atmosphere stores heat.
At the same time absolute 0 is minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 273.15 degrees Celsius).
CO2 as .04% of our atmosphere should have the same warming effect as a % of our nominal atmospheric temperature. Then any increase in CO2 should mirror any rise in temperature. This hasn't been been shown.

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for April 2016 was 1.10°C (1.98°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F)—the highest temperature departure for April since global records began in 1880.
Global Climate Report - April 2016 | State of the Climate | National ...
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201604

If this link is used it shows about a 7° C. difference. That is obviously wrong. Kind of why it seems basic checks haven't been done to verify that CO2 levels have the same effect on our temperature above absolute 0 as it does on rising above any nominal average.



Jim
05-06-2017 19:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
With climate change, if CO2 is warming our planet it should be observable by showing a basic relationship in temperature. The difference between the average night time and day time temperature shows that our atmosphere stores heat.
At the same time absolute 0 is minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 273.15 degrees Celsius).
CO2 as .04% of our atmosphere should have the same warming effect as a % of our nominal atmospheric temperature. Then any increase in CO2 should mirror any rise in temperature. This hasn't been been shown.

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for April 2016 was 1.10°C (1.98°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F)—the highest temperature departure for April since global records began in 1880.
Global Climate Report - April 2016 | State of the Climate | National ...
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201604

If this link is used it shows about a 7° C. difference. That is obviously wrong. Kind of why it seems basic checks haven't been done to verify that CO2 levels have the same effect on our temperature above absolute 0 as it does on rising above any nominal average.
Jim


Jim, the records don't make any sense for a variety of reasons - Firstly this is a world wide grab for additional power by politicians who normally follow the Marxist/Leninist strategy of making the populations of the world fear something enough so that they will willingly give government more and more control to the point of no return.

Obama took this to a whole new level by funding what became ISIS as well as having a compliant NOAA and NASA support preposterous claims from a tiny number of scientists. NOAA easily backed Obama's desire for proof of AGW by simply not correcting for the Urban Heat Island effect since almost all of the temperature measurement sites around the world are adjacent to areas that had heavy urban growth. The satellite records from 1979 showed nothing of the sort so they merely combined them with the surface temperature records which were preposterous.

And then they took records of CO2 growth and scaled them so that they appeared to be a cause and not a probable effect. Population growth or the increase in farming production or the number of automobiles purchased world wide could easily be scaled to also match this growth pattern.

So AGW has never been supported by the overwhelming majority of scientists - only by those beholden to government support - and even many of those have moved to silence the claims of the global warmists that they somehow agreed with the claims.

Aside from the politicians and the IPCC there are also the maniacs who believe that there are too many human's on the Earth and that they must be controlled. These people say these things in public and are supported almost totally by the True Believers who apparently do not believe this mass murder of populations to be aimed directly at them:

https://www.infowars.com/enviroment-eugenics-quotes/

In the end this planet is doing nothing more than going through the standard millennia warm period and it is being used by non-scientist interested parties for their own interests.

Consider this in the light that most Climate Change forums will not allow "deniers" to post. The claim is that they make false claims - consider this in the light of the pro-global warming claims here vs. the scientific approaches of Thermal and Leitwolf and others. With this in mind it becomes clear that almost the entirety of supporters of AGW are unqualified people with the True Believer religion.

Where and why this comes from is extremely odd to me. When questioned these same people have done not one thing themselves. ONE made questioned said that he had installed solar panels on his home. He claimed to have reduced his electric bill to nothing. But I could not get him to respond to questions of what he paid for such as installation. I happen to know that his "20 KW" installation would cost approximately $20,000. When we still had American manufacturers of these solar installations, I went to a show and talked directly to company engineers from each company. What I discovered was that the claims were entirely BS. The installations never put out 20 KW except at noon on a perfect high summer day and averaged year round - nothing. A local high-brow town council made it part of the building code that all new construction was mandated to have solar installations on each new home. This added $40,000 to the cost of a new home. After a couple of years the home-owners are up in arms because the installations didn't change their electricity bills by one cent.

PG&E which supplies most of the power to the San Francisco bay area, and for that matter a large portion of the state, has been installing solar and windmills for decades since the Federal Government has been paying for it. They now have a large enough installation to supply 29% of the peak demand for their service area. What is their yearly profits from "green energy"? Slightly more than 2% though it hit 3% last year at the tail end of a three year drought when wind and solar condition were nearly perfect for the entire year. This year it will be probably around 1%.

Every American manufacturer of solar panels have gone out of business and there is a reason for that. And the media as usual is keeping secrets.

The end result is that there are entire reams of information showing that there isn't any such thing as AGW. That the present increased CO2 and warming is far more positive than negative. And that every action claimed to be "clean energy" isn't.

As you grow and get into techical work I would like you to always keep a fairly hard skepticism. To look at who will benefit from false claims. And who won't.

Remember this sort of thing:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

And remember that papers like this have been smothered by the media and the government:

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

There has never been a paper to counter this one but if you mention this paper you get "Oh, that paper was falsified long ago." Lies and misrepresentations make up the power structure and you have to be aware of this every second you work in science and technology.

While managing a department I would continually put up to the board that their product under development was trash and neither fulfilled a need nor could be developed in their time frame and budget. Why was this? Because the company was designed specifically to provide a large write-off for the mother company.
05-06-2017 22:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
James_ wrote:
With climate change, if CO2 is warming our planet it should be observable by showing a basic relationship in temperature. The difference between the average night time and day time temperature shows that our atmosphere stores heat.
It is not possible to store heat. It IS possible to store thermal energy, which what I think you really mean.

It takes time to heat up and cool down any mass. The atmosphere is no different. It is heated primarily by conduction from the surface. Some heating takes place as the result of direct absorption of electromagnetic energy directly from the Sun. The atmosphere acts a bit like a radiator does for a car. It helps to cool the land.

James_ wrote:
...deleted off topic portion...
CO2 as .04% of our atmosphere should have the same warming effect as a % of our nominal atmospheric temperature. Then any increase in CO2 should mirror any rise in temperature. This hasn't been been shown.

It hasn't been shown because it is not possible to determine a global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy.
James_ wrote:
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for April 2016 was 1.10°C (1.98°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F)—the highest temperature departure for April since global records began in 1880.
Manufactured data, courtesy of NOAA. It is not possible to determine a global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy. It is not even possible to determine the temperature of the United States, despite the NOAA stations operating there.
...deleted redundant link...
James_ wrote:
If this link is used it shows about a 7° C. difference.
A difference of what and what?
James_ wrote:
That is obviously wrong.
It must be. We can't determine the temperature of the Earth.
James_ wrote:
Kind of why it seems basic checks haven't been done to verify that CO2 levels have the same effect on our temperature above absolute 0 as it does on rising above any nominal average.

Not possible to perform such checks.

We don't even know the CO2 levels of the Earth. We only know what they are at the monitoring stations, if you trust the instrumentation (which I don't, particularly).

The Mauna Loa observatory, for example, is using an artificial reference that has little to do with the actual data being measured. The data they are measuring is using an instrument susceptible to a variety of false indications. They 'adjust' these out using the artificial reference. It's a bit like putting a ruler randomly on a wall and marking the point at the 6 inch mark, then putting the ruler against an absolute reference boss to see if the 6 inch mark is accurate.

Factors that affect the instrumentation and the resulting data are:

Presence of CO2 from any source. Mauna Loa is an active volcano. There are also other nearby active volcanoes that emit gases that travel on the trade winds to Mauna Loa.

Presence of water. Mauna Loa is in a marine environment (Hawaii) subject to trade winds. While it is possible to measure the humidity of the air, it is not accurate enough to compensate for such an instrument since the instrument is measuring such tiny variations in gas density.
This portion of the calibration is done using an artificial reference (a cannister of known air humidity).

Temperature. This is properly compensated for by using accurately monitored heating elements. Hawaii is a marine environment, making this job easier.


The Parrot Killer
05-06-2017 22:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
With climate change, if CO2 is warming our planet it should be observable by showing a basic relationship in temperature. The difference between the average night time and day time temperature shows that our atmosphere stores heat.
It is not possible to store heat. It IS possible to store thermal energy, which what I think you really mean.

It takes time to heat up and cool down any mass. The atmosphere is no different. It is heated primarily by conduction from the surface. Some heating takes place as the result of direct absorption of electromagnetic energy directly from the Sun. The atmosphere acts a bit like a radiator does for a car. It helps to cool the land.

James_ wrote:
...deleted off topic portion...
CO2 as .04% of our atmosphere should have the same warming effect as a % of our nominal atmospheric temperature. Then any increase in CO2 should mirror any rise in temperature. This hasn't been been shown.

It hasn't been shown because it is not possible to determine a global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy.
James_ wrote:
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for April 2016 was 1.10°C (1.98°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F)—the highest temperature departure for April since global records began in 1880.
Manufactured data, courtesy of NOAA. It is not possible to determine a global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy. It is not even possible to determine the temperature of the United States, despite the NOAA stations operating there.
...deleted redundant link...
James_ wrote:
If this link is used it shows about a 7° C. difference.
A difference of what and what?
James_ wrote:
That is obviously wrong.
It must be. We can't determine the temperature of the Earth.
James_ wrote:
Kind of why it seems basic checks haven't been done to verify that CO2 levels have the same effect on our temperature above absolute 0 as it does on rising above any nominal average.

Not possible to perform such checks.

We don't even know the CO2 levels of the Earth. We only know what they are at the monitoring stations, if you trust the instrumentation (which I don't, particularly).

The Mauna Loa observatory, for example, is using an artificial reference that has little to do with the actual data being measured. The data they are measuring is using an instrument susceptible to a variety of false indications. They 'adjust' these out using the artificial reference. It's a bit like putting a ruler randomly on a wall and marking the point at the 6 inch mark, then putting the ruler against an absolute reference boss to see if the 6 inch mark is accurate.

Factors that affect the instrumentation and the resulting data are:

Presence of CO2 from any source. Mauna Loa is an active volcano. There are also other nearby active volcanoes that emit gases that travel on the trade winds to Mauna Loa.

Presence of water. Mauna Loa is in a marine environment (Hawaii) subject to trade winds. While it is possible to measure the humidity of the air, it is not accurate enough to compensate for such an instrument since the instrument is measuring such tiny variations in gas density.
This portion of the calibration is done using an artificial reference (a cannister of known air humidity).

Temperature. This is properly compensated for by using accurately monitored heating elements. Hawaii is a marine environment, making this job easier.


At one point do you see yourself for what you are?

Heat is thermal energy. Tell us - how do you "store" thermal energy?

Satellite imaging has given us the ability to measure the emission of the entire Earth 24 hours a day. I realize that you're too slow to be able to understand that but it isn't possible to put these things down on a level that you could understand.

Because of spectroscopy we can tell EXACTLY how much CO2 is in the atmosphere but again we cannot make anything simple enough for you to understand. You blither on like a fool pretending you know something that you can't even comprehend.

The Mauna Loa experiment wasn't designed to tell us the CO2 in the atmosphere you moron - it was an attempt to discover what percentage of the CO2 was being generated by man.

Mauna Loa is both south and east of the rest of the islands and in a position so that the trade winds do not wash anything other than ocean air over the detection sites from over an entire ocean. You are so god-damned stupid you think that experiments designed by real scientists are all wrong.

You are so stupid you think that humidity would effect a spectrometer.

Just go away where your blithering stupidity does cause the rest of us to roll around on the floor laughing at your postings.
06-06-2017 00:28
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Going by this graph (https://goo.gl/images/4ogJrK) which is typical;

1910 - 300 ppm 57.0° F.
1985 - 350 ppm 57.9° F.
2015 - 390 ppm 58.6° F.

Absolute 0 is about -460° F.

With CO2 0.03% of Earth's atmosphere it is responsible for 14.55° F.
At 0.035% of Earth's atmosphere it is responsible for 16.95° F.
And at 0.04% it is responsible for 19.3° F.

This means that in 1985 it should have been 59.4° F.
and in 2015 it should be closer to 61.8° F.

Instead it's 58.6° F. and the annual global temperature is not keeping pace with the ever increasing levels of CO2.
This is why atmospheric gases should be flow tested to observe how much heat can be absorbed and released while varying the levels of different gases. This would give a real time observation on if CO2 has any significant impact on our atmosphere's ability to absorb and store heat.


Jim
06-06-2017 01:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Going by this graph (https://goo.gl/images/4ogJrK) which is typical;

1910 - 300 ppm 57.0° F.
1985 - 350 ppm 57.9° F.
2015 - 390 ppm 58.6° F.

Absolute 0 is about -460° F.

With CO2 0.03% of Earth's atmosphere it is responsible for 14.55° F.
At 0.035% of Earth's atmosphere it is responsible for 16.95° F.
And at 0.04% it is responsible for 19.3° F.

This means that in 1985 it should have been 59.4° F.
and in 2015 it should be closer to 61.8° F.

Instead it's 58.6° F. and the annual global temperature is not keeping pace with the ever increasing levels of CO2.
This is why atmospheric gases should be flow tested to observe how much heat can be absorbed and released while varying the levels of different gases. This would give a real time observation on if CO2 has any significant impact on our atmosphere's ability to absorb and store heat.
Jim


This has been pointed out in several papers. I think the one that really put a bullet through it's heart is this one: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

This paper shows that there IS no heating from atmospheric gases other than H2O and this only at altitudes in the stratosphere where the atmospheric density is something like 0.1 bar. And this is so thin that it allows penetration of the high energy particles I was speaking of earlier.

Additional papers on this subject are:
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/homerbe.html
A listing of many papers on this subject is found at:
http://library.ssec.wisc.edu/instrumentation/ERBE.html
06-06-2017 02:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Going by this graph (https://goo.gl/images/4ogJrK) which is typical;

1910 - 300 ppm 57.0° F.
1985 - 350 ppm 57.9° F.
2015 - 390 ppm 58.6° F.

Absolute 0 is about -460° F.

With CO2 0.03% of Earth's atmosphere it is responsible for 14.55° F.
At 0.035% of Earth's atmosphere it is responsible for 16.95° F.
And at 0.04% it is responsible for 19.3° F.

This means that in 1985 it should have been 59.4° F.
and in 2015 it should be closer to 61.8° F.

Instead it's 58.6° F. and the annual global temperature is not keeping pace with the ever increasing levels of CO2.
This is why atmospheric gases should be flow tested to observe how much heat can be absorbed and released while varying the levels of different gases. This would give a real time observation on if CO2 has any significant impact on our atmosphere's ability to absorb and store heat.
Jim


I've been thinking that I haven't made a point clear:

Kirchhoff's Law says that any object that absorbs at specific frequencies also radiates at these frequencies. But this is offset by Wien's Law which says that the temperature of the emitting body affects the wavelength of the radiant energy emitted.

How does this effect CO2 when I say that it absorbs at the middle IR and emits at the UV?

This is because the charged particles that pound energy into all of the gases raise their temperature and hence the frequencies at what they emit in the stratosphere and above. That is the reason for the apparently silly temperature curve of the atmospheric levels even to the point of the heat of the actual molecules of air in the Stratosphere changing from -55C to 0C over it's depth (getting warmer with altitude) and the Thermosphere changing temperature 190 degrees from -90 C to +100C.

http://www.kidsgeo.com/geography-for-kids/0048-temperature-effects-on-atmosphere.php

This is all a bit silly of course - if you stuck your arm out the window at the top of the Thermosphere at 100C if would freeze solid in a second since it would be a heat emitter and not absorber. And there would be no atmosphere around it to insulate it.
06-06-2017 04:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
With climate change, if CO2 is warming our planet it should be observable by showing a basic relationship in temperature. The difference between the average night time and day time temperature shows that our atmosphere stores heat.
It is not possible to store heat. It IS possible to store thermal energy, which what I think you really mean.

It takes time to heat up and cool down any mass. The atmosphere is no different. It is heated primarily by conduction from the surface. Some heating takes place as the result of direct absorption of electromagnetic energy directly from the Sun. The atmosphere acts a bit like a radiator does for a car. It helps to cool the land.

James_ wrote:
...deleted off topic portion...
CO2 as .04% of our atmosphere should have the same warming effect as a % of our nominal atmospheric temperature. Then any increase in CO2 should mirror any rise in temperature. This hasn't been been shown.

It hasn't been shown because it is not possible to determine a global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy.
James_ wrote:
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for April 2016 was 1.10°C (1.98°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F)—the highest temperature departure for April since global records began in 1880.
Manufactured data, courtesy of NOAA. It is not possible to determine a global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy. It is not even possible to determine the temperature of the United States, despite the NOAA stations operating there.
...deleted redundant link...
James_ wrote:
If this link is used it shows about a 7° C. difference.
A difference of what and what?
James_ wrote:
That is obviously wrong.
It must be. We can't determine the temperature of the Earth.
James_ wrote:
Kind of why it seems basic checks haven't been done to verify that CO2 levels have the same effect on our temperature above absolute 0 as it does on rising above any nominal average.

Not possible to perform such checks.

We don't even know the CO2 levels of the Earth. We only know what they are at the monitoring stations, if you trust the instrumentation (which I don't, particularly).

The Mauna Loa observatory, for example, is using an artificial reference that has little to do with the actual data being measured. The data they are measuring is using an instrument susceptible to a variety of false indications. They 'adjust' these out using the artificial reference. It's a bit like putting a ruler randomly on a wall and marking the point at the 6 inch mark, then putting the ruler against an absolute reference boss to see if the 6 inch mark is accurate.

Factors that affect the instrumentation and the resulting data are:

Presence of CO2 from any source. Mauna Loa is an active volcano. There are also other nearby active volcanoes that emit gases that travel on the trade winds to Mauna Loa.

Presence of water. Mauna Loa is in a marine environment (Hawaii) subject to trade winds. While it is possible to measure the humidity of the air, it is not accurate enough to compensate for such an instrument since the instrument is measuring such tiny variations in gas density.
This portion of the calibration is done using an artificial reference (a cannister of known air humidity).

Temperature. This is properly compensated for by using accurately monitored heating elements. Hawaii is a marine environment, making this job easier.


At one point do you see yourself for what you are?

Heat is thermal energy.

Wrong. Heat is not thermal energy. Go check out a physics book from the library. Be sure it has a chapter on thermodynamics in there.
Wake wrote:
Tell us - how do you "store" thermal energy?

Mass.
Wake wrote:
Satellite imaging has given us the ability to measure the emission of the entire Earth 24 hours a day.

Satellites cannot measure emission. They measure light from all sources. You do not know the emissivity of the Earth. It is not possible to determine it.
Wake wrote:
I realize that you're too slow to be able to understand that but it isn't possible to put these things down on a level that you could understand.

Why you have decided to deny science is what I don't understand.
Wake wrote:
Because of spectroscopy we can tell EXACTLY how much CO2 is in the atmosphere

No. It tells us that there IS CO2 in the atmosphere. It does not tell how much without actual references, not artificial ones.
Wake wrote:
but again we cannot make anything simple enough for you to understand.

Again, it is YOU that does not understand the limitations of the instrumentation.
Wake wrote:
You blither on like a fool pretending you know something that you can't even comprehend.

I do comprehend it. I build instrumentation for a living.
Wake wrote:
The Mauna Loa experiment wasn't designed to tell us the CO2 in the atmosphere you moron

Yes it was.
Wake wrote:
- it was an attempt to discover what percentage of the CO2 was being generated by man.

It is not capable of determining the source of that CO2. CO2 is a molecule. It does not have a little signature on it that says "I came from a car that was just rented at Hilo airport!".
Wake wrote:
Mauna Loa is both south and east of the rest of the islands and in a position so that the trade winds do not wash anything other than ocean air over the detection sites from over an entire ocean.

The Trade Winds in Hawaii blow out of the NE. The Kona winds blow out of the W or SW. These winds cross ALL of the Hawaiian islands except Wake and Midway before passing Mauna Loa. All the winds in Hawaii carry large amounts of moisture.
Wake wrote:
You are so god-damned stupid you think that experiments designed by real scientists are all wrong.

I can certainly identify the faults in many instruments, true. Science isn't scientists. It is not credentials. It is not peer review. It is not a university. It is not a research program. It is not a government agency. It is not data collection.

Science is just the falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Wake wrote:
You are so stupid you think that humidity would effect a spectrometer.

It does. That's why you have to be careful with how you use it.
Wake wrote:
Just go away where your blithering stupidity does cause the rest of us to roll around on the floor laughing at your postings.

Your denial is science is becoming essentially religious. You are becoming increasingly stuck in circular arguments. You now have a paradox that you need to clear concerning the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Remaining in a paradox only continues an irrational position.


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2017 04:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
James_ wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...

1910 - 300 ppm 57.0° F.
1985 - 350 ppm 57.9° F.
2015 - 390 ppm 58.6° F.

You don't know the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to determine to any useful degree of accuracy.
James_ wrote:
Absolute 0 is about -460° F.

With CO2 0.03% of Earth's atmosphere it is responsible for 14.55° F.
At 0.035% of Earth's atmosphere it is responsible for 16.95° F.
And at 0.04% it is responsible for 19.3° F.

This means that in 1985 it should have been 59.4° F.
and in 2015 it should be closer to 61.8° F.

Argument from randU. You are just quoting random numbers.
James_ wrote:
Instead it's 58.6° F.

You don't know the temperature of the Earth.
James_ wrote:
and the annual global temperature is not keeping pace with the ever increasing levels of CO2.

You don't know the temperature of the Earth.
James_ wrote:
This is why atmospheric gases should be flow tested to observe how much heat can be absorbed and released while varying the levels of different gases.

Don't need to flow test them. The heat index of all components of the atmosphere are well known and documented.
James_ wrote:
This would give a real time observation on if CO2 has any significant impact on our atmosphere's ability to absorb and store heat.

We already have these numbers and have had them for some time.

Carbon dioxide has no remarkable properties in this area. It heats and cools about as fast as any other gas in the atmosphere. It's ability to conduct heat is also similar.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-06-2017 04:38
06-06-2017 04:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Going by this graph (https://goo.gl/images/4ogJrK) which is typical;

1910 - 300 ppm 57.0° F.
1985 - 350 ppm 57.9° F.
2015 - 390 ppm 58.6° F.

Absolute 0 is about -460° F.

With CO2 0.03% of Earth's atmosphere it is responsible for 14.55° F.
At 0.035% of Earth's atmosphere it is responsible for 16.95° F.
And at 0.04% it is responsible for 19.3° F.

This means that in 1985 it should have been 59.4° F.
and in 2015 it should be closer to 61.8° F.

Instead it's 58.6° F. and the annual global temperature is not keeping pace with the ever increasing levels of CO2.
This is why atmospheric gases should be flow tested to observe how much heat can be absorbed and released while varying the levels of different gases. This would give a real time observation on if CO2 has any significant impact on our atmosphere's ability to absorb and store heat.
Jim


I've been thinking that I haven't made a point clear:

Kirchhoff's Law says that any object that absorbs at specific frequencies also radiates at these frequencies. But this is offset by Wien's Law which says that the temperature of the emitting body affects the wavelength of the radiant energy emitted.

How does this effect CO2 when I say that it absorbs at the middle IR and emits at the UV?

This is because the charged particles that pound energy into all of the gases raise their temperature and hence the frequencies at what they emit in the stratosphere and above. That is the reason for the apparently silly temperature curve of the atmospheric levels even to the point of the heat of the actual molecules of air in the Stratosphere changing from -55C to 0C over it's depth (getting warmer with altitude) and the Thermosphere changing temperature 190 degrees from -90 C to +100C.

http://www.kidsgeo.com/geography-for-kids/0048-temperature-effects-on-atmosphere.php

This is all a bit silly of course - if you stuck your arm out the window at the top of the Thermosphere at 100C if would freeze solid in a second since it would be a heat emitter and not absorber. And there would be no atmosphere around it to insulate it.


So now you are saying that boiling water emits UV light???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2017 18:25
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

We already have these numbers and have had them for some time.

Carbon dioxide has no remarkable properties in this area. It heats and cools about as fast as any other gas in the atmosphere. It's ability to conduct heat is also similar.


I really doubt this. If we did then there would be no argument about the spcific role that CO2 plays in our atmosphere as far as it's "heat trapping" potential goes.
Our planet's temperature and CO2 levels can't be shown to have a scientific relationship. At the same time ocean vents are releasing enough heat to account for sudden changes in climate. A well known example is the warming period of 1910 - 1940 which happened with a CO2 level increase of about 13 ppm.
That is a comparable rise to the 1978 - 2008 warming period where CO2 levels rose about 50 ppm. Yet the primary argument for CO2 causing warming is by showing how technical the argument can be made. This is where the discussion usually goes like "if you look at it's IR absorption, etc.". Yet it can't be demonstrated that if the amount of CO2 is increased in atmospheric gases that it will transport more heat. That's because scientists over looked a basic experiment that shouldn't been done along time ago but hasn't been because now they'd have to admit to making a huge mistake in how they go about evaluating a gases effect on our atmosphere.


Jim
06-06-2017 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

We already have these numbers and have had them for some time.

Carbon dioxide has no remarkable properties in this area. It heats and cools about as fast as any other gas in the atmosphere. It's ability to conduct heat is also similar.


I really doubt this.

No need to doubt. People have cataloged the heat index and conductivity of a wide array of common materials, including those gases of the atmosphere. CO2 is part of those lists. You can find a copy of the heat index list at the Engineering Toolbox website.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-ratio-d_608.html
James_ wrote:
If we did then there would be no argument about the spcific role that CO2 plays in our atmosphere as far as it's "heat trapping" potential goes.
You cannot trap heat.

James_ wrote:
Our planet's temperature and CO2 levels can't be shown to have a scientific relationship.

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' relationship. There is a relationship, or there is not. As far as a relationship of temperature vs CO2 concentration, true.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. It is also not possible to determine the CO2 concentration of Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. We just don't have the instrumentation to do it.
James_ wrote:
At the same time ocean vents are releasing enough heat to account for sudden changes in climate.
Climate doesn't change. Weather does. Want to see why? Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.
James_ wrote:
A well known example is the warming period of 1910 - 1940 which happened with a CO2 level increase of about 13 ppm.
You don't know the temperature of the Earth at that time.
James_ wrote:
That is a comparable rise to the 1978 - 2008 warming period where CO2 levels rose about 50 ppm.
You don't know the temperature of the Earth at that time.
James_ wrote:
Yet the primary argument for CO2 causing warming is by showing how technical the argument can be made.
This is to try to baffle and bamboozle the unwary and scientifically illiterate public. This is what religions do.
James_ wrote:
This is where the discussion usually goes like "if you look at it's IR absorption, etc.".

Carbon dioxide does absorb infrared light. The result is slight heating of the carbon dioxide. It is just another way to heat the atmosphere by the surface. It is how the surface cools.
James_ wrote:
Yet it can't be demonstrated that if the amount of CO2 is increased in atmospheric gases that it will transport more heat.

True. CO2 has no remarkable ability to conduct heat better than any other gas. This too can be found in the data for common materials.
James_ wrote:
That's because scientists over looked a basic experiment that shouldn't been done along time ago but hasn't been because now they'd have to admit to making a huge mistake in how they go about evaluating a gases effect on our atmosphere.

They have evaluated the gases of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide has no remarkable properties other than a high liquification temperature as compared to other atmospheric gases.

That property is why carbon dioxide makes such a great fire extinguisher. It not only smothers the fire, it cools it, breaking two of the requirements for fire to sustain itself. It also doesn't contaminate like other extinguishers. It's even cheap.


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2017 22:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

We already have these numbers and have had them for some time.

Carbon dioxide has no remarkable properties in this area. It heats and cools about as fast as any other gas in the atmosphere. It's ability to conduct heat is also similar.


I really doubt this. If we did then there would be no argument about the spcific role that CO2 plays in our atmosphere as far as it's "heat trapping" potential goes.
Our planet's temperature and CO2 levels can't be shown to have a scientific relationship. At the same time ocean vents are releasing enough heat to account for sudden changes in climate. A well known example is the warming period of 1910 - 1940 which happened with a CO2 level increase of about 13 ppm.
That is a comparable rise to the 1978 - 2008 warming period where CO2 levels rose about 50 ppm. Yet the primary argument for CO2 causing warming is by showing how technical the argument can be made. This is where the discussion usually goes like "if you look at it's IR absorption, etc.". Yet it can't be demonstrated that if the amount of CO2 is increased in atmospheric gases that it will transport more heat. That's because scientists over looked a basic experiment that shouldn't been done along time ago but hasn't been because now they'd have to admit to making a huge mistake in how they go about evaluating a gases effect on our atmosphere.
Jim


Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

I have been thinking that since they haven't accounted for the urban heat island effect that we may actually be facing something else altogether.

Most of the heat measuring sites around the world are in areas in which there was large and rapid urban growth. I'm told though I haven't found any real data that adjacent areas of farmlands showed none of this temperature increases. You certainly couldn't use temperature information from, say, Mauna Loa because of the very strong moderating actions of the proximity of seawater.

If you look at the first part of "global warming" 1886 until 1939 or so let us suppose that the only heating was the false rise due exclusively to urban heat island effect as there was rapid urban growth due to the industrial revolution.

Then from 1940 until 1970 urban growth was stunted due to the war and the disastrous debt that it caused on most of the world's cities. (what would you like to bet that you can see cooling if we could get the German temperature records?)

Now from 1970 onwards we again entered a time of heavy urban growth. This NASA chart shows a zooming upward trend but if we look at:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg which is the pure satellite record that is immune to the urban hear island effect we discover no temperature growth at all. Only the usual chaotic weather patterns.

So perhaps we can attribute the temperature growth in the first half of the 20th century to nothing more than urban hear island effect. And then then halt in heating because of an almost total halt in urban growth from the war and the after-war years recovery.

Then the heating from 1970 or so to 1979 from additional urban growth and then a flattening against because this heat island effect has a maximum additional effect and we have reached that.

We have ice levels changing in the Arctic. So what? That has been occurring since time immemorial.

We have sea levels rising (perhaps). We definitely see lower latitude and lower altitude glaciers melting. But is this evidence of heating or the expected rebound from the Maunder Minimum which was closely followed by the Dalton Minimum.

In short - do we really have any evidence that there has been any real heating at all?
07-06-2017 00:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Wake wrote:
I have been thinking that since they haven't accounted for the urban heat island effect that we may actually be facing something else altogether.

Most of the heat measuring sites around the world are in areas in which there was large and rapid urban growth. I'm told though I haven't found any real data that adjacent areas of farmlands showed none of this temperature increases. You certainly couldn't use temperature information from, say, Mauna Loa because of the very strong moderating actions of the proximity of seawater.


This is a fairly common argument that has been presented before by others. There is a flaw in it, and it has to do with the demands of statistical math again.

This argument typical goes that we have to compensate for the heat island effect in the cities. The problem with this argument is that the heat island effect in the cities is also part of the Earth and must be measured. You can't just discard it.

Statistical selection MUST be by randN, independent of any aspect of the data being selected.

That means the effect of location must be eliminated. It affects the data.
It also means time must be eliminated reading the instruments. It affects the data since storms move, Earth spins producing a day/night that is constantly moving across the surface, etc.

It also means that, mathematically, adjustments of any kind to the readings in the cities is not allowed. That induces a bias in the result known as 'preselection' and is considered a math error.

If we are going to get any idea of what the global surface temperature is, thermometers must first be uniformly placed across the surface of the Earth. Thermometers that happen to be in cities require no correction.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2017 07:07
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1694)
What Wake is saying here, and I agree, if there is any man made warming it is due to concrete, not CO2. Concrete stores heat. I don't know if you can scientifically store heat and I don't care. What I care about is the facts about the world I live in. The fact is that concrete, when heated by direct sunlight, is a hot surface that heats the air via conduction. The same concrete stays warm late into the night, continuing to heat the air, certainly enough to move night time average temps. I know you'll say you can't accurately measure average temps, but you can certainly compare temps from the same instrument from the same location and see the difference over the last 40 years.
07-06-2017 08:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
GasGuzzler wrote:
What Wake is saying here, and I agree, if there is any man made warming it is due to concrete, not CO2.
Okay. Let's look at this opinion.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Concrete stores heat. I don't know if you can scientifically store heat and I don't care.
Concrete stores thermal energy, not heat. Heat cannot be stored. The correct term is 'thermal energy'.
GasGuzzler wrote:
What I care about is the facts about the world I live in.
Okay. Let's look at the known properties of concrete vs wet soil, such as you find in a forest, and dry soil, which you find in grasslands and deserts.
GasGuzzler wrote:
The fact is that concrete, when heated by direct sunlight, is a hot surface that heats the air via conduction.
This is true of all materials.
GasGuzzler wrote:
The same concrete stays warm late into the night, continuing to heat the air, certainly enough to move night time average temps.
Hmmm. Let's see....

The specific heat of concrete is actually about the same as dry soil. Wet soil has a much higher specific heat. A higher specific heat means it will take longer to heat up a substance than a lower one, given the same amount of heating.

Both set and dry soils, however, are shaded by the plants above them. The only place this is not true is a desert.

Cities tend to be built near water. They are often built in or near marine environments.

Water has a very high specific heat. It is the second highest of any common material, surpassed only by hydrogen. It takes a long time to heat up or cool down water. In addition, water, being a liquid, is subject to convective effects. The energy that goes into water needs to basically heat ALL the water through and through, while heating a solid such as concrete or soil generally involves only the surface. Anything under the surface maintains a pretty stable temperature.

The emissivity of all of these materials is generally about the same value, around 0.95. This is a measure of how well the material absorbs electromagnetic energy and converts it into thermal energy. It is also a measure of how intense the infrared 'glow' is coming from the material due to Planck radiation.

Cities are built like walled enclosures. The effects of wind are minimized on city streets due to buildings. This reduces heating by convection slightly, affecting heat loss at night. Cities also consume a lot of power to control the temperature of their buildings, even at night. Then there are the effect of lighting. Lighting elements produce heat as well as light.

If the city consumed no power, and all the buildings were dark, and the wind could flow through it unhindered, it would cool just as fast as a nearby desert would.

The forest would actually be the warmest place at night in such a case, especially if it's swampy. Surely you've notice how warm a swamp can seem at night in the summer.

The heat island effect of a city is real, but it is not due to the specific heat or the emissivity of concrete. It is due to the amount of sheer power we pour into our cities on a constant basis.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I know you'll say you can't accurately measure average temps, but you can certainly compare temps from the same instrument from the same location and see the difference over the last 40 years.

Such a statement is clearly subjective. There is no indication WHY a thermometer is reading higher over the last 40 years. It could be the thermometer is defective. It could be it is exposed to unusual conditions. It could be the actual heat island effect of a city.

Probably a better indication is the change in overall weather.

The Puget Sound weather patterns form what is known around here as the 'Convergence Zone'. It is where air drier air coming from prevailing SW winds meet up with moister air coming from the strait of Juan de Fuca.

As Seattle expanded over the years, this zone moved from it's normal position just south of Seattle (in a town called SeaTac) to a normal position of approx downtown Everett.

Today, Seattle and Everett are a continuous urban and suburban terrain. The Convergence Zone is still moving northward as a result. I suspect it will settle over the southern portion of the Tulalip tribal lands for a long while. A natural unbuildable swamp exists there and the indians have little incentive to continue the suburbia into their lands.

Man made global warming? Consider that all the cities combined are only 0.3% of the total surface area of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2017 16:27
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1694)
Man made global warming? Consider that all the cities combined are only 0.3% of the total surface area of the Earth


And cities contain what percent of "official" weather reporting stations? I don't know the ratio, but I can bet it is highly unbalanced.
07-06-2017 17:54
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Man made global warming? Consider that all the cities combined are only 0.3% of the total surface area of the Earth


And cities contain what percent of "official" weather reporting stations? I don't know the ratio, but I can bet it is highly unbalanced.


I hope Into the Night doesn't live anywhere around the Puget Sound. What he failed to mention is that the Jet Stream has 2 different paths it follows. One is south down the Pacific Ocean and then up over the Gulf of California. It's other path is east across Canada until it drops south once it's past the Cascade mountains.

@Wake,
The warming of the Greenland Sea mirrors Global Warming since the 1950's quite well. https://goo.gl/photos/3VEtQk8dsLY7tEhs9
Actual warming did not start again until about 1978. Something that disagrees with CO2 levels which have risen steadily since 1950.
And with those who support CO2 as causing Global Warming, they either ignore or make an excuse for the warming that occurred between 1910 - 1945.
Also in the U.S. electricity in KWh has declined and last year coal's use was at it's lowest since 1984. Yet CO2 levels are still rising. It's not because of the U.S.
Where o' where is all the CO2 coming from ?
While I dislike President Trump (am a Democrat) I am glad that he pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord as it is not based on science that has been peer reviewed. In science, peer review is a requirement which the IPCC does not have to allow. And this is something that many scientists dislike. It's a black eye for the scientific community.


Jim

edited to make my position known, I do believe Waste heat is or can accelerate natural geologic changes our planet goes through. I also believe it is possible that scientists are downplaying ozone depletion as a possible source of warming to support CO2. At the moment there is no evidence in ice core samples,, graphs linking a rise in CO2 levels to warming or even any tests that will demonstrate atmospheric gases ability to absorb and release heat being influenced by CO2 levels. It's this last statement that allows for debate.
It is something that can be but has not been done. It would be empirical evidence which could not be refuted. And this is where the peer review system normally used would allow scientists the opportunity to review their peers work and to address any concerns.
Edited on 07-06-2017 18:04
07-06-2017 18:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
James_ wrote: I really doubt this. If we did then there would be no argument about the spcific role that CO2 plays in our atmosphere as far as it's "heat trapping" potential goes.

The mere existence of an argument does not give it merit, especially when the argument is posed by scientifically illiterate warmizomies.

Physics tells us that thermal radiation flows out of CO2 at the exact same rate that it flows out of ALL MATTER. That rate of flow is based only on temperature and not on substance. Stefan-Boltzmann specifies this relationship.

Ergo, there is no debate on this matter unless it involves science deniers. Science answers the question.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-06-2017 19:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Man made global warming? Consider that all the cities combined are only 0.3% of the total surface area of the Earth


And cities contain what percent of "official" weather reporting stations? I don't know the ratio, but I can bet it is highly unbalanced.


It sure is. Doubly so.

NOAA operates a lot of weather stations. There are other official weather stations besides those operated by NOAA. The United States has more weather stations than anywhere else in the world.

Many of these weather stations are located either in or near cities.

All of them are located in the United States.

For other nations, weather stations are most often located in or near cities.

Weather stations need service, maybe people to run them, etc. That means roads. They tend to be located where people are, since it is people that want to know what the weather is in their area.

No one knows how many thermometers there are in the world in any kind of official capacity, so it is not possible to describe a hard percentage of how many of them are in cities.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2017 20:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Man made global warming? Consider that all the cities combined are only 0.3% of the total surface area of the Earth


And cities contain what percent of "official" weather reporting stations? I don't know the ratio, but I can bet it is highly unbalanced.


I hope Into the Night doesn't live anywhere around the Puget Sound. What he failed to mention is that the Jet Stream has 2 different paths it follows. One is south down the Pacific Ocean and then up over the Gulf of California. It's other path is east across Canada until it drops south once it's past the Cascade mountains.

I live in the Puget Sound area. I can practically spit in it.

The subtropical jet steam doesn't affect us much here in Seattle. Our weather is influenced by the polar jet stream.

The Convergence Zone is not caused by either jet stream. It is caused by terrain in the area affecting the prevailing winds.

James_ wrote:
@Wake,
The warming of the Greenland Sea mirrors Global Warming since the 1950's quite well. ...deleted link...
Actual warming did not start again until about 1978. Something that disagrees with CO2 levels which have risen steadily since 1950.
And with those who support CO2 as causing Global Warming, they either ignore or make an excuse for the warming that occurred between 1910 - 1945.
Also in the U.S. electricity in KWh has declined and last year coal's use was at it's lowest since 1984. Yet CO2 levels are still rising. It's not because of the U.S.
Where o' where is all the CO2 coming from ?
While I dislike President Trump (am a Democrat) I am glad that he pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord as it is not based on science that has been peer reviewed. In science, peer review is a requirement which the IPCC does not have to allow. And this is something that many scientists dislike. It's a black eye for the scientific community.

Peer review is not required by science. Science is not peer reviews. No one 'owns' science. It does not use consensus of any kind.

The Paris Accord is not based on science. It is based on a religion. Theories of science must be falsifiable, externally consistent, and internally consistent. Global Warming is not internally consistent. It is based on a logical fallacy. The term is undefined as anything but itself. It is not even a non-scientific theory.

James_ wrote:
I also believe it is possible that scientists are downplaying ozone depletion as a possible source of warming to support CO2.

The ozone is not being depleted. We couldn't destroy it even if we wanted to. While ozone production and destruction by sunlight produces a temperature inversion in the atmosphere, it does not warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-06-2017 20:38
07-06-2017 20:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Man made global warming? Consider that all the cities combined are only 0.3% of the total surface area of the Earth


And cities contain what percent of "official" weather reporting stations? I don't know the ratio, but I can bet it is highly unbalanced.


I hope Into the Night doesn't live anywhere around the Puget Sound. What he failed to mention is that the Jet Stream has 2 different paths it follows. One is south down the Pacific Ocean and then up over the Gulf of California. It's other path is east across Canada until it drops south once it's past the Cascade mountains.

@Wake,
The warming of the Greenland Sea mirrors Global Warming since the 1950's quite well. https://goo.gl/photos/3VEtQk8dsLY7tEhs9
Actual warming did not start again until about 1978. Something that disagrees with CO2 levels which have risen steadily since 1950.
And with those who support CO2 as causing Global Warming, they either ignore or make an excuse for the warming that occurred between 1910 - 1945.
Also in the U.S. electricity in KWh has declined and last year coal's use was at it's lowest since 1984. Yet CO2 levels are still rising. It's not because of the U.S.
Where o' where is all the CO2 coming from ?
While I dislike President Trump (am a Democrat) I am glad that he pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord as it is not based on science that has been peer reviewed. In science, peer review is a requirement which the IPCC does not have to allow. And this is something that many scientists dislike. It's a black eye for the scientific community.


Jim

edited to make my position known, I do believe Waste heat is or can accelerate natural geologic changes our planet goes through. I also believe it is possible that scientists are downplaying ozone depletion as a possible source of warming to support CO2. At the moment there is no evidence in ice core samples,, graphs linking a rise in CO2 levels to warming or even any tests that will demonstrate atmospheric gases ability to absorb and release heat being influenced by CO2 levels. It's this last statement that allows for debate.
It is something that can be but has not been done. It would be empirical evidence which could not be refuted. And this is where the peer review system normally used would allow scientists the opportunity to review their peers work and to address any concerns.


Here's the data as best I know: the government controlled weather stations that report temperature to the Federal Government are ALL at airports. But this only represents some 2,000 stations.

Of the other 200,000 they apparently are all privately owned and have been half-assed "quality controlled" whatever that means. World wide it is likely to be virtually all at airports or in the center of major cities. My assumption is that "private" also means state owned because I'm sure that weather conditions are recorded at every lighthouse on every coast.

You cannot use the steady rise in CO2 to prove that the temperature hiatus means anything. Weather is chaotic and as such cannot be relied upon over relatively short periods of 30-40 years to not act in a counter-intuitive manner.

This is the entire problem with this. Pulling order out of disorder is a major undertaking and it is NOT being undertaken by NOAA or NASA in an organized manner.

As I noted, because of the way they have been gathering date we could have little more than a return to normal temperatures world-wide and the effects we have seen might be nothing more than return to normal conditions after the rather serious cooling of the Maunder Minimum followed by the Dalton Minimum.

The Greenland sea temperatures are an unknown. We do not understand sea temperature or current effects due to temperature differentials between poles and equator due to the Earth's spin.

Computer modeling has shown that severe storms are due to this and that reducing the temperature differences between poles and equator reduce severe storms. This is almost guaranteed to be pertinent to ocean currents also.
07-06-2017 21:49
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Man made global warming? Consider that all the cities combined are only 0.3% of the total surface area of the Earth


And cities contain what percent of "official" weather reporting stations? I don't know the ratio, but I can bet it is highly unbalanced.


I hope Into the Night doesn't live anywhere around the Puget Sound. What he failed to mention is that the Jet Stream has 2 different paths it follows. One is south down the Pacific Ocean and then up over the Gulf of California. It's other path is east across Canada until it drops south once it's past the Cascade mountains.

I live in the Puget Sound area. I can practically spit in it.

The subtropical jet steam doesn't affect us much here in Seattle. Our weather is influenced by the polar jet stream.

The Convergence Zone is not caused by either jet stream. It is caused by terrain in the area affecting the prevailing winds.

James_ wrote:
@Wake,
The warming of the Greenland Sea mirrors Global Warming since the 1950's quite well. ...deleted link...
Actual warming did not start again until about 1978. Something that disagrees with CO2 levels which have risen steadily since 1950.
And with those who support CO2 as causing Global Warming, they either ignore or make an excuse for the warming that occurred between 1910 - 1945.
Also in the U.S. electricity in KWh has declined and last year coal's use was at it's lowest since 1984. Yet CO2 levels are still rising. It's not because of the U.S.
Where o' where is all the CO2 coming from ?
While I dislike President Trump (am a Democrat) I am glad that he pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord as it is not based on science that has been peer reviewed. In science, peer review is a requirement which the IPCC does not have to allow. And this is something that many scientists dislike. It's a black eye for the scientific community.

Peer review is not required by science. Science is not peer reviews. No one 'owns' science. It does not use consensus of any kind.

The Paris Accord is not based on science. It is based on a religion. Theories of science must be falsifiable, externally consistent, and internally consistent. Global Warming is not internally consistent. It is based on a logical fallacy. The term is undefined as anything but itself. It is not even a non-scientific theory.

James_ wrote:
I also believe it is possible that scientists are downplaying ozone depletion as a possible source of warming to support CO2.

The ozone is not being depleted. We couldn't destroy it even if we wanted to. While ozone production and destruction by sunlight produces a temperature inversion in the atmosphere, it does not warm the Earth.


I lived in Seattle for over 25 years myself. And El Nino and La Nina influence the Jet Stream. A lot of what you say about the area sounds almost like pseudo science. From McChord up to Marysville has been a populate corridor since the 1970's. It's up around Redmond and Bothell that's grown.
Also Peer Review is a staple of science. It is how a consensus is formed. There is no consensus on what is causing climate change.

I like this part
>> The Convergence Zone is not caused by either jet stream. It is caused by terrain in the area affecting the prevailing winds. <<

This is to say why it rains all the time in Seattle, right ? Compression caused by terrain allows for a steady drizzle. This in turn allows clouds to rise to a high enough elevation to go over the Cascade Mountains. And it's a high pressure system off the west coast that pushes the Jet Stream through Canada.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/13/california-drought-whats-causing-it/


@Wake,
You seem to say science doesn't know what it's doing and then give your own definition. That's rather confusing.
07-06-2017 23:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Man made global warming? Consider that all the cities combined are only 0.3% of the total surface area of the Earth


And cities contain what percent of "official" weather reporting stations? I don't know the ratio, but I can bet it is highly unbalanced.


I hope Into the Night doesn't live anywhere around the Puget Sound. What he failed to mention is that the Jet Stream has 2 different paths it follows. One is south down the Pacific Ocean and then up over the Gulf of California. It's other path is east across Canada until it drops south once it's past the Cascade mountains.

I live in the Puget Sound area. I can practically spit in it.

The subtropical jet steam doesn't affect us much here in Seattle. Our weather is influenced by the polar jet stream.

The Convergence Zone is not caused by either jet stream. It is caused by terrain in the area affecting the prevailing winds.

James_ wrote:
@Wake,
The warming of the Greenland Sea mirrors Global Warming since the 1950's quite well. ...deleted link...
Actual warming did not start again until about 1978. Something that disagrees with CO2 levels which have risen steadily since 1950.
And with those who support CO2 as causing Global Warming, they either ignore or make an excuse for the warming that occurred between 1910 - 1945.
Also in the U.S. electricity in KWh has declined and last year coal's use was at it's lowest since 1984. Yet CO2 levels are still rising. It's not because of the U.S.
Where o' where is all the CO2 coming from ?
While I dislike President Trump (am a Democrat) I am glad that he pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord as it is not based on science that has been peer reviewed. In science, peer review is a requirement which the IPCC does not have to allow. And this is something that many scientists dislike. It's a black eye for the scientific community.

Peer review is not required by science. Science is not peer reviews. No one 'owns' science. It does not use consensus of any kind.

The Paris Accord is not based on science. It is based on a religion. Theories of science must be falsifiable, externally consistent, and internally consistent. Global Warming is not internally consistent. It is based on a logical fallacy. The term is undefined as anything but itself. It is not even a non-scientific theory.

James_ wrote:
I also believe it is possible that scientists are downplaying ozone depletion as a possible source of warming to support CO2.

The ozone is not being depleted. We couldn't destroy it even if we wanted to. While ozone production and destruction by sunlight produces a temperature inversion in the atmosphere, it does not warm the Earth.


I lived in Seattle for over 25 years myself. And El Nino and La Nina influence the Jet Stream. A lot of what you say about the area sounds almost like pseudo science. From McChord up to Marysville has been a populate corridor since the 1970's. It's up around Redmond and Bothell that's grown.
Also Peer Review is a staple of science. It is how a consensus is formed. There is no consensus on what is causing climate change.

I like this part
>> The Convergence Zone is not caused by either jet stream. It is caused by terrain in the area affecting the prevailing winds. <<

This is to say why it rains all the time in Seattle, right ? Compression caused by terrain allows for a steady drizzle. This in turn allows clouds to rise to a high enough elevation to go over the Cascade Mountains. And it's a high pressure system off the west coast that pushes the Jet Stream through Canada.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/13/california-drought-whats-causing-it/


@Wake,
You seem to say science doesn't know what it's doing and then give your own definition. That's rather confusing.


The decompression as the air clears the cascades is why it's so dry in Moses Lake.

I don't know where you get the idea that I think that science doesn't know what it's doing. I said that it doesn't know many things. And among those at the moment is what the true temperature changes have been until satellite data came along.

One of the things that you have to be careful of with the satellite data is the global warming crazies using the extreme color shift of those satellite maps to imply that there is a lot of growing temperature.

In fact those maps are showing very little temperature differences in radiated heat. They simply use those colors to show the spread which is pretty narrow considering that they cover the equator to the arctic circle.
07-06-2017 23:45
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1694)
Wake wrote:
reducing the temperature differences between poles and equator reduce severe storms. This is almost guaranteed to be pertinent to ocean currents also.


Yes, severe storms are almost always due to strong low pressure, which is created by temp differential.

That is why it is so damn frustrating to listen to the Warmies say the Arctic is warming , and that same warming is causing storms to be more severe. Not true. Not possible.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
08-06-2017 03:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Man made global warming? Consider that all the cities combined are only 0.3% of the total surface area of the Earth


And cities contain what percent of "official" weather reporting stations? I don't know the ratio, but I can bet it is highly unbalanced.


I hope Into the Night doesn't live anywhere around the Puget Sound. What he failed to mention is that the Jet Stream has 2 different paths it follows. One is south down the Pacific Ocean and then up over the Gulf of California. It's other path is east across Canada until it drops south once it's past the Cascade mountains.

@Wake,
The warming of the Greenland Sea mirrors Global Warming since the 1950's quite well. https://goo.gl/photos/3VEtQk8dsLY7tEhs9
Actual warming did not start again until about 1978. Something that disagrees with CO2 levels which have risen steadily since 1950.
And with those who support CO2 as causing Global Warming, they either ignore or make an excuse for the warming that occurred between 1910 - 1945.
Also in the U.S. electricity in KWh has declined and last year coal's use was at it's lowest since 1984. Yet CO2 levels are still rising. It's not because of the U.S.
Where o' where is all the CO2 coming from ?
While I dislike President Trump (am a Democrat) I am glad that he pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord as it is not based on science that has been peer reviewed. In science, peer review is a requirement which the IPCC does not have to allow. And this is something that many scientists dislike. It's a black eye for the scientific community.


Jim

edited to make my position known, I do believe Waste heat is or can accelerate natural geologic changes our planet goes through. I also believe it is possible that scientists are downplaying ozone depletion as a possible source of warming to support CO2. At the moment there is no evidence in ice core samples,, graphs linking a rise in CO2 levels to warming or even any tests that will demonstrate atmospheric gases ability to absorb and release heat being influenced by CO2 levels. It's this last statement that allows for debate.
It is something that can be but has not been done. It would be empirical evidence which could not be refuted. And this is where the peer review system normally used would allow scientists the opportunity to review their peers work and to address any concerns.


Here's the data as best I know: the government controlled weather stations that report temperature to the Federal Government are ALL at airports. But this only represents some 2,000 stations.
Nope. Almost all of the NOAA operated stations are NOT at airports at all. Airports have their own weather monitoring systems that are fed into the FSS database, but not NOAA.
Wake wrote:
Of the other 200,000 they apparently are all privately owned and have been half-assed "quality controlled" whatever that means.
I think we can safely write off amateur weather stations, except those that have been properly checking their equipment for accuracy.
Wake wrote:
World wide it is likely to be virtually all at airports or in the center of major cities.

Outside the United States it is quite sparse, especially for historical data. Most of the weather stations in Europe were destroyed by war. The one operating there now are only recently opened.

The USSR weather stations collapsed with the fall of the USSR due to pressure from Reagan. They have since re-established their government and some weather stations are starting to become available again. Many of these were in Siberia and were used to monitor the railway line there.

Other nations have no weather stations at all.

Neither Alaska nor Hawaii have no weather stations operated by NOAA. NOAA only operates the CO2 monitoring station at Mauna Loa. The weather stations in both of these States are a combination of amateur stations and privately funded and operated stations using calibrated equipment.

The station in Seattle was located at the Sandpoint Naval Air station. That site is now abandoned, and the new location is at the University of Washington, just east of Husky Stadium. This is quite near the original site and terrain is similar, so the temperature data should be fairly consistent between the two sites.

There are also stations at Snoqualmie Falls and at Cedar Lake.

The station for Everett is located an a light industrial complex just east of the Everett railway station and west of I-5.

SeaTac airport (KSEA) has a semiautomated station that only reports to the FSS database for pilots.

Boeing field (KBFI) has a manually monitored service that only reports to the FSS database for pilots. It is closer to Seattle proper and the current conditions there are often included in local weather reports.

Paine Field (KPAE) has a fully automated weather station that is connected to the FSS database. This station is used in lieu of Arlington (KAWO) weather when their automated station is offline for servicing. Both stations report only to the FSS database.

Wake wrote:
My assumption is that "private" also means state owned because I'm sure that weather conditions are recorded at every lighthouse on every coast.

Oddly enough, they aren't. Lighthouses use some minimal weather instrumentation to turn on and off these days, but they are mostly fully automated facilities now. They do not report to any database. Temperature is not one the things measured by a lighthouse for this purpose.
Wake wrote:
You cannot use the steady rise in CO2 to prove that the temperature hiatus means anything. Weather is chaotic and as such cannot be relied upon over relatively short periods of 30-40 years to not act in a counter-intuitive manner.
This is quite correct.
Wake wrote:
This is the entire problem with this. Pulling order out of disorder is a major undertaking and it is NOT being undertaken by NOAA or NASA in an organized manner.
They are not undertaking it at all. They are using purely manufactured data that comes from the IPCC.
Wake wrote:
As I noted, because of the way they have been gathering date we could have little more than a return to normal temperatures world-wide and the effects we have seen might be nothing more than return to normal conditions after the rather serious cooling of the Maunder Minimum followed by the Dalton Minimum.

Since it's not possible to determine a global temperature to any useful accuracy, guess we'll never know, will we?
Wake wrote:
The Greenland sea temperatures are an unknown.
Correct.
Wake wrote:
We do not understand sea temperature or current effects due to temperature differentials between poles and equator due to the Earth's spin.

We do understand enough to know where the currents of the oceans tend to lie. Mariners have used these currents since sailing the oceans. It is temperature difference that drives these currents.
Wake wrote:
Computer modeling has shown that severe storms are due to this and that reducing the temperature differences between poles and equator reduce severe storms. This is almost guaranteed to be pertinent to ocean currents also.

Computer modeling shows nothing. Computer modeling is not data. It is manufactured data. All it proves is that someone can write a program to generate numbers according to their own preconceived ideas of what *should* happen.


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2017 04:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Man made global warming? Consider that all the cities combined are only 0.3% of the total surface area of the Earth


And cities contain what percent of "official" weather reporting stations? I don't know the ratio, but I can bet it is highly unbalanced.


I hope Into the Night doesn't live anywhere around the Puget Sound. What he failed to mention is that the Jet Stream has 2 different paths it follows. One is south down the Pacific Ocean and then up over the Gulf of California. It's other path is east across Canada until it drops south once it's past the Cascade mountains.

I live in the Puget Sound area. I can practically spit in it.

The subtropical jet steam doesn't affect us much here in Seattle. Our weather is influenced by the polar jet stream.

The Convergence Zone is not caused by either jet stream. It is caused by terrain in the area affecting the prevailing winds.

James_ wrote:
@Wake,
The warming of the Greenland Sea mirrors Global Warming since the 1950's quite well. ...deleted link...
Actual warming did not start again until about 1978. Something that disagrees with CO2 levels which have risen steadily since 1950.
And with those who support CO2 as causing Global Warming, they either ignore or make an excuse for the warming that occurred between 1910 - 1945.
Also in the U.S. electricity in KWh has declined and last year coal's use was at it's lowest since 1984. Yet CO2 levels are still rising. It's not because of the U.S.
Where o' where is all the CO2 coming from ?
While I dislike President Trump (am a Democrat) I am glad that he pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord as it is not based on science that has been peer reviewed. In science, peer review is a requirement which the IPCC does not have to allow. And this is something that many scientists dislike. It's a black eye for the scientific community.

Peer review is not required by science. Science is not peer reviews. No one 'owns' science. It does not use consensus of any kind.

The Paris Accord is not based on science. It is based on a religion. Theories of science must be falsifiable, externally consistent, and internally consistent. Global Warming is not internally consistent. It is based on a logical fallacy. The term is undefined as anything but itself. It is not even a non-scientific theory.

James_ wrote:
I also believe it is possible that scientists are downplaying ozone depletion as a possible source of warming to support CO2.

The ozone is not being depleted. We couldn't destroy it even if we wanted to. While ozone production and destruction by sunlight produces a temperature inversion in the atmosphere, it does not warm the Earth.







I lived in Seattle for over 25 years myself. And El Nino and La Nina influence the Jet Stream. A lot of what you say about the area sounds almost like pseudo science. From McChord up to Marysville has been a populate corridor since the 1970's. It's up around Redmond and Bothell that's grown.

I am referring to a time well before 1970.

It is true that both El Nino and La Nina cycles affect both jet streams. During an El Nino cycle, the polar stream will often split, sending much Seattle's rain into southern California, a terrain that doesn't handle that much water well. That's when the L.A. area tends to get its floods and destruction.

James_ wrote:
Also Peer Review is a staple of science.

Nope. Not at all. Peer review is not a required component of science.
James_ wrote:
It is how a consensus is formed.

Consensus is not used in science at all. Consensus is a political or religious term only.
James_ wrote:
There is no consensus on what is causing climate change.

Yes there is. Just ask the Church of Global Warming. Their gospel is quite consistent. The message in their scripture doesn't change much. This consensus is religiously based. Like all religions, they are based on an initial circular argument.
James_ wrote:
I like this part
>> The Convergence Zone is not caused by either jet stream. It is caused by terrain in the area affecting the prevailing winds. <<

This is to say why it rains all the time in Seattle, right ?

No. The Convergence Zone is why it tends to rain more in some places than others in the Seattle area.
James_ wrote:
Compression caused by terrain allows for a steady drizzle.

That generally doesn't affect Seattle. It is not close enough to the windward side of any mountain or mountain range. The Cascade range is too far away for this effect.
James_ wrote:
This in turn allows clouds to rise to a high enough elevation to go over the Cascade Mountains.

Producing the usual 'Welcome to Western Washington' wall of dark grey and rain at the summit of Snoqualmie pass.
James_ wrote:
And it's a high pressure system off the west coast that pushes the Jet Stream through Canada.

High pressure anywhere just south of the polar jetstream will push it into Canada, if the high pressure area is anywhere near or in the United States. Lows north of the jetstream will tend to suck the jetstream in the direction of the low.

James_ wrote:
...deleted link concerning California drought...

California's drought is a normal weather pattern for California. The biggest problem for California is not that there isn't rain or snow, but mismanagement of the water they do get. You can quite properly blame both the federal government and Sacramento for this.


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2017 04:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Man made global warming? Consider that all the cities combined are only 0.3% of the total surface area of the Earth


And cities contain what percent of "official" weather reporting stations? I don't know the ratio, but I can bet it is highly unbalanced.


I hope Into the Night doesn't live anywhere around the Puget Sound. What he failed to mention is that the Jet Stream has 2 different paths it follows. One is south down the Pacific Ocean and then up over the Gulf of California. It's other path is east across Canada until it drops south once it's past the Cascade mountains.

I live in the Puget Sound area. I can practically spit in it.

The subtropical jet steam doesn't affect us much here in Seattle. Our weather is influenced by the polar jet stream.

The Convergence Zone is not caused by either jet stream. It is caused by terrain in the area affecting the prevailing winds.

James_ wrote:
@Wake,
The warming of the Greenland Sea mirrors Global Warming since the 1950's quite well. ...deleted link...
Actual warming did not start again until about 1978. Something that disagrees with CO2 levels which have risen steadily since 1950.
And with those who support CO2 as causing Global Warming, they either ignore or make an excuse for the warming that occurred between 1910 - 1945.
Also in the U.S. electricity in KWh has declined and last year coal's use was at it's lowest since 1984. Yet CO2 levels are still rising. It's not because of the U.S.
Where o' where is all the CO2 coming from ?
While I dislike President Trump (am a Democrat) I am glad that he pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord as it is not based on science that has been peer reviewed. In science, peer review is a requirement which the IPCC does not have to allow. And this is something that many scientists dislike. It's a black eye for the scientific community.

Peer review is not required by science. Science is not peer reviews. No one 'owns' science. It does not use consensus of any kind.

The Paris Accord is not based on science. It is based on a religion. Theories of science must be falsifiable, externally consistent, and internally consistent. Global Warming is not internally consistent. It is based on a logical fallacy. The term is undefined as anything but itself. It is not even a non-scientific theory.

James_ wrote:
I also believe it is possible that scientists are downplaying ozone depletion as a possible source of warming to support CO2.

The ozone is not being depleted. We couldn't destroy it even if we wanted to. While ozone production and destruction by sunlight produces a temperature inversion in the atmosphere, it does not warm the Earth.


I lived in Seattle for over 25 years myself. And El Nino and La Nina influence the Jet Stream. A lot of what you say about the area sounds almost like pseudo science. From McChord up to Marysville has been a populate corridor since the 1970's. It's up around Redmond and Bothell that's grown.
Also Peer Review is a staple of science. It is how a consensus is formed. There is no consensus on what is causing climate change.

I like this part
>> The Convergence Zone is not caused by either jet stream. It is caused by terrain in the area affecting the prevailing winds. <<

This is to say why it rains all the time in Seattle, right ? Compression caused by terrain allows for a steady drizzle. This in turn allows clouds to rise to a high enough elevation to go over the Cascade Mountains. And it's a high pressure system off the west coast that pushes the Jet Stream through Canada.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/13/california-drought-whats-causing-it/


@Wake,
You seem to say science doesn't know what it's doing and then give your own definition. That's rather confusing.


The decompression as the air clears the cascades is why it's so dry in Moses Lake.

Quite true. Pretty well covers all of Eastern Washington all the way to the Blue Mountains.
Wake wrote:
I don't know where you get the idea that I think that science doesn't know what it's doing. I said that it doesn't know many things. And among those at the moment is what the true temperature changes have been until satellite data came along.

Satellites don't measure temperature.
Wake wrote:
One of the things that you have to be careful of with the satellite data is the global warming crazies using the extreme color shift of those satellite maps to imply that there is a lot of growing temperature.

Bingo.
Wake wrote:
In fact those maps are showing very little temperature differences in radiated heat. They simply use those colors to show the spread which is pretty narrow considering that they cover the equator to the arctic circle.

Light is not temperature. NASA is basically making use what is known as a base rate fallacy.

Satellite 'temperature' maps are pretty useless. The reason is that the satellite only sees light, not thermal energy directly. The light that it sees is a combination of Planck emission and reflected light. It is not possible to separate the two since they are using common frequencies.

Satellites simply assume a given emissivity value. Emissivity, however, changes dramatically every few inches along the surface of the Earth. It is not possible to determine the emissivity of Earth itself.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate It's In The Math, It's Not But Should Be:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)23024-02-2020 23:13
Help with math2902-12-2016 19:21
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact