Remember me
▼ Content

So Is The Feedback Positive Or Negative?



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
24-03-2017 03:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Frescomexico wrote:
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

How is the South Pole not following my explanation? AFAIK, the amount of water vapour over the South Pole hasn't significantly increased, nor has the temperature.
24-03-2017 07:16
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
Ceist wrote:
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.


Oh! Didn't even see this. Ha!
So I went to the site you suggested....https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/understanding-link-between-climate-change-and-extreme-weather

I assume this is what you call fact based science? Boy, you got a set of balls calling anyone one else out for junk science. Just a few quotes from the the article...I don't have time to go through every damn ridiculous claim.

There has been an increase in the intensity,
frequency, and duration of hurricanes and in the number of strong
(Category 4 and 5) hurricanes in the North Atlantic Ocean since the
early 1980s



gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Attached image:


Edited on 24-03-2017 08:14
24-03-2017 07:19
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
Next....

Heat waves have generally become more frequent and intense across the
United States in recent decades, particularly in the western United
States



gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Attached image:

24-03-2017 07:22
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
Next....

Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the
1950s, and their tracks have shifted northward over the United States.


The 12 worst blizzards in US history.
Rank/year
1. 1888- 40-50 inches of snow on New York and the eastern seabord.
2. 1993
3. 1950
4. 1888-(Minnesota)
5. 1922
6. 1940
7. 1975
8. 1996
9. 1899
10.1967
11. 2010
12. 2003
7 OUT OF 12 ARE 1950 OR EARLIER!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/atoz/the-12-worst-blizzards-in-us-history/ss-AA9npVj


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Attached image:


Edited on 24-03-2017 07:44
24-03-2017 07:36
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
Next....are you getting the idea? Ya'll are full shit!!

large portions of the Southwest have experienced drought conditions
since weekly Drought Monitor records began in 2000.



gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Attached image:


Edited on 24-03-2017 07:39
24-03-2017 07:54
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
addressing the claim to snowstorm tracks shifting to the north....I only looked up Amarillo Texas because I know they are south but do get snow. Well looky here...nothing to see here really. How long will you continue blaming every weather condition available on global warming?

Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the
1950s, and their tracks have shifted northward over the United States.

Attached image:


Edited on 24-03-2017 07:58
24-03-2017 16:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
addressing the claim to snowstorm tracks shifting to the north....I only looked up Amarillo Texas because I know they are south but do get snow. Well looky here...nothing to see here really. How long will you continue blaming every weather condition available on global warming?

Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the
1950s, and their tracks have shifted northward over the United States.


Even the local weather men on TV are saying, "Man, we haven't had a storm this bad since 1998. California has had 9 droughts as bad as the last one in the last 100 years and every single one of them ended with the same sort of flooding.
RE: Surface Detail's Explanation24-03-2017 17:22
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
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[/quote]
How is the South Pole not following my explanation? AFAIK, the amount of water vapour over the South Pole hasn't significantly increased, nor has the temperature.[/quote]

Understood. I guess there are still some things we have not figured out.

(As can be seen above, I haven't even figured out how to post with quotes.)
Edited on 24-03-2017 17:29
RE: Feedback24-03-2017 17:50
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Getting back to the subject of this thread: is the feedback [from CO2's greenhouse effect] positive or negative, there seems to be a number of theories and papers suggesting that it is positive. Where is the evidence that it is negative?
24-03-2017 17:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Getting back to the subject of this thread: is the feedback [from CO2's greenhouse effect] positive or negative, there seems to be a number of theories and papers suggesting that it is positive. Where is the evidence that it is negative?


That is the problem. It is in the mouths of the True Believers and no where else. There are no studies that support such an unsupportable idea.
24-03-2017 18:22
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/
24-03-2017 22:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/


This won't effect the True Believers.
24-03-2017 23:20
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/


This won't effect the True Believers.


Who are these people?
24-03-2017 23:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/


This won't effect the True Believers.


Who are these people?


You can see four of them here. litesong who is so insane that he is answering himself and no one pays any attention to him. Spot, Surface Decal and Ceist who are intelligent but HAVE to prove they are right and that the human race is doomed to a fiery death of his own manufacture.

No amount of proof will allow them to believe that they worship a false God.

There are entire "Climate Change Forum" sites which do not even ALLOW any "deniers". And most of them are not even open to publishing scientific papers and nothing else to disprove their theories. They will attack you. On one site the "moderator" argues that I'm incorrect when I say that fuel cells are carbon neutral because it requires power to separate hydrogen from water to fuel these vehicles. Then he claims that lithium is cheap and common despite the fact that the most common form of lithium is not water soluble and most of the lithium being mined is via a method of pumping water far down into the earth, allowing it to pick up a soluble form and then pumping it out and onto a lake bed where it takes between six months and 3 years to dry out to the point where it has to be processed. The insoluble form is taken from HUGE open pit mines (some a mile or more in diameter and a mile deep.) as part of mining other materials. And the processing of that is equally energy intensive.

Or you can have a dozen people attack you saying EXACTLY the same thing and the moderator says nothing but if you make the same claim with studies showing it to be true he will cut your posting because you are "repeating".

This is the climate "science" and the True Believers that will ALL talk as if you question them you are a stupid fool.

And then they wonder why research funding is being cut by at least a fifth and more cuts to come.
25-03-2017 00:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/

It's a bit short on detail. For example, in the first experiment that he describes, he doesn't give the frequency or time of day that the readings were taken (daily? hourly? day and/or night?) or the time of year (summer? winter?).

These things are important: humid weather is more likely to be cloudy, and, while cloudy days tend to be cooler, cloudy nights tend to be milder. Also, the cooling effect of clouds is likely to be more pronounced in summer, while the warming effect is likely to predominate in winter.

More detail is needed before any conclusions can be drawn!
25-03-2017 00:31
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/

It's a bit short on detail. For example, in the first experiment that he describes, he doesn't give the frequency or time of day that the readings were taken (daily? hourly? day and/or night?) or the time of year (summer? winter?).

These things are important: humid weather is more likely to be cloudy, and, while cloudy days tend to be cooler, cloudy nights tend to be milder. Also, the cooling effect of clouds is likely to be more pronounced in summer, while the warming effect is likely to predominate in winter.

More detail is needed before any conclusions can be drawn!


I hear you.
Edited on 25-03-2017 00:32
25-03-2017 00:50
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/


This won't effect the True Believers.


Who are these people?


You can see four of them here. litesong who is so insane that he is answering himself and no one pays any attention to him. Spot, Surface Decal and Ceist who are intelligent but HAVE to prove they are right and that the human race is doomed to a fiery death of his own manufacture.

No amount of proof will allow them to believe that they worship a false God.

There are entire "Climate Change Forum" sites which do not even ALLOW any "deniers". And most of them are not even open to publishing scientific papers and nothing else to disprove their theories. They will attack you. On one site the "moderator" argues that I'm incorrect when I say that fuel cells are carbon neutral because it requires power to separate hydrogen from water to fuel these vehicles. Then he claims that lithium is cheap and common despite the fact that the most common form of lithium is not water soluble and most of the lithium being mined is via a method of pumping water far down into the earth, allowing it to pick up a soluble form and then pumping it out and onto a lake bed where it takes between six months and 3 years to dry out to the point where it has to be processed. The insoluble form is taken from HUGE open pit mines (some a mile or more in diameter and a mile deep.) as part of mining other materials. And the processing of that is equally energy intensive.

Or you can have a dozen people attack you saying EXACTLY the same thing and the moderator says nothing but if you make the same claim with studies showing it to be true he will cut your posting because you are "repeating".

This is the climate "science" and the True Believers that will ALL talk as if you question them you are a stupid fool.

And then they wonder why research funding is being cut by at least a fifth and more cuts to come.


I am hopeful that the new administration will be more unbiased in their allocation of funding to scientists who truly want to find the cause of climate change. But knowing politicians I am skeptical. More likely, they will just cut off all funding.

Those that you call true believers may continue to be so until it starts to get colder (the pause doesn't cut it with them), or until they die and it takes a jack hammer to bury them.
25-03-2017 01:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/


This won't effect the True Believers.


Who are these people?


You can see four of them here. litesong who is so insane that he is answering himself and no one pays any attention to him. Spot, Surface Decal and Ceist who are intelligent but HAVE to prove they are right and that the human race is doomed to a fiery death of his own manufacture.

No amount of proof will allow them to believe that they worship a false God.

There are entire "Climate Change Forum" sites which do not even ALLOW any "deniers". And most of them are not even open to publishing scientific papers and nothing else to disprove their theories. They will attack you. On one site the "moderator" argues that I'm incorrect when I say that fuel cells are carbon neutral because it requires power to separate hydrogen from water to fuel these vehicles. Then he claims that lithium is cheap and common despite the fact that the most common form of lithium is not water soluble and most of the lithium being mined is via a method of pumping water far down into the earth, allowing it to pick up a soluble form and then pumping it out and onto a lake bed where it takes between six months and 3 years to dry out to the point where it has to be processed. The insoluble form is taken from HUGE open pit mines (some a mile or more in diameter and a mile deep.) as part of mining other materials. And the processing of that is equally energy intensive.

Or you can have a dozen people attack you saying EXACTLY the same thing and the moderator says nothing but if you make the same claim with studies showing it to be true he will cut your posting because you are "repeating".

This is the climate "science" and the True Believers that will ALL talk as if you question them you are a stupid fool.

And then they wonder why research funding is being cut by at least a fifth and more cuts to come.


I am hopeful that the new administration will be more unbiased in their allocation of funding to scientists who truly want to find the cause of climate change. But knowing politicians I am skeptical. More likely, they will just cut off all funding.

Those that you call true believers may continue to be so until it starts to get colder (the pause doesn't cut it with them), or until they die and it takes a jack hammer to bury them.


http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=174 and
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html
http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/30/robust-evidence-noaa-temperature-data-hopelessly-corrupted-by-warming-bias-manipulation/#sthash.sWOAw4TW.dpbs

As you can see the data is so hopelessly counterfeited that we do not have the slightest idea what the climate is actually doing.

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Abstract
This assessment is a review of the common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands. I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases
containing 5% of water vapor and 0.039% of carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities/emissivities overlap. The result of these calculations is that the carbon dioxide attenuates the total absorptivity/emissivity of the water vapor, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface.

The sum result of this data demonstrates that there is no climate change beyond the recovery from the little ice age and normal cyclic weather variations.

So there is no climate change. It is mostly nothing but a figment of the imagination of man with his short lifespan compared to climate with it's millennia long patterns.
Edited on 25-03-2017 01:15
25-03-2017 01:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/


This won't effect the True Believers.


Who are these people?


You can see four of them here. litesong who is so insane that he is answering himself and no one pays any attention to him. Spot, Surface Decal and Ceist who are intelligent but HAVE to prove they are right and that the human race is doomed to a fiery death of his own manufacture.

No amount of proof will allow them to believe that they worship a false God.

There are entire "Climate Change Forum" sites which do not even ALLOW any "deniers". And most of them are not even open to publishing scientific papers and nothing else to disprove their theories. They will attack you. On one site the "moderator" argues that I'm incorrect when I say that fuel cells are carbon neutral because it requires power to separate hydrogen from water to fuel these vehicles. Then he claims that lithium is cheap and common despite the fact that the most common form of lithium is not water soluble and most of the lithium being mined is via a method of pumping water far down into the earth, allowing it to pick up a soluble form and then pumping it out and onto a lake bed where it takes between six months and 3 years to dry out to the point where it has to be processed. The insoluble form is taken from HUGE open pit mines (some a mile or more in diameter and a mile deep.) as part of mining other materials. And the processing of that is equally energy intensive.

Or you can have a dozen people attack you saying EXACTLY the same thing and the moderator says nothing but if you make the same claim with studies showing it to be true he will cut your posting because you are "repeating".

This is the climate "science" and the True Believers that will ALL talk as if you question them you are a stupid fool.

And then they wonder why research funding is being cut by at least a fifth and more cuts to come.


I am hopeful that the new administration will be more unbiased in their allocation of funding to scientists who truly want to find the cause of climate change. But knowing politicians I am skeptical. More likely, they will just cut off all funding.

Those that you call true believers may continue to be so until it starts to get colder (the pause doesn't cut it with them), or until they die and it takes a jack hammer to bury them.


http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=174 and
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html
http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/30/robust-evidence-noaa-temperature-data-hopelessly-corrupted-by-warming-bias-manipulation/#sthash.sWOAw4TW.dpbs

As you can see the data is so hopelessly counterfeited that we do not have the slightest idea what the climate is actually doing.

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Abstract
This assessment is a review of the common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands. I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases
containing 5% of water vapor and 0.039% of carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities/emissivities overlap. The result of these calculations is that the carbon dioxide attenuates the total absorptivity/emissivity of the water vapor, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface.

The sum result of this data demonstrates that there is no climate change beyond the recovery from the little ice age and normal cyclic weather variations.

So there is no climate change. It is mostly nothing but a figment of the imagination of man with his short lifespan compared to climate with it's millennia long patterns.

I've already pointed out to you that that "paper" is nonsense. The claim that there is a "common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands" is simply wrong. Nobody is making this claim.

Edit: And your links to media sites and blogs mean nothing - I could just as easily link to a string of media sites and blogs saying the opposite. The only reliable sources of scientific information are papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and material based on such papers.
Edited on 25-03-2017 01:27
25-03-2017 01:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
blah blah blah blah


Is your walker giving you trouble again today?
25-03-2017 01:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
blah blah blah blah


Is your walker giving you trouble again today?

I see you've given up any pretence of actual discussion. No surprises there.
25-03-2017 02:23
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/


This won't effect the True Believers.


Who are these people?


You can see four of them here. litesong who is so insane that he is answering himself and no one pays any attention to him. Spot, Surface Decal and Ceist who are intelligent but HAVE to prove they are right and that the human race is doomed to a fiery death of his own manufacture.

No amount of proof will allow them to believe that they worship a false God.

There are entire "Climate Change Forum" sites which do not even ALLOW any "deniers". And most of them are not even open to publishing scientific papers and nothing else to disprove their theories. They will attack you. On one site the "moderator" argues that I'm incorrect when I say that fuel cells are carbon neutral because it requires power to separate hydrogen from water to fuel these vehicles. Then he claims that lithium is cheap and common despite the fact that the most common form of lithium is not water soluble and most of the lithium being mined is via a method of pumping water far down into the earth, allowing it to pick up a soluble form and then pumping it out and onto a lake bed where it takes between six months and 3 years to dry out to the point where it has to be processed. The insoluble form is taken from HUGE open pit mines (some a mile or more in diameter and a mile deep.) as part of mining other materials. And the processing of that is equally energy intensive.

Or you can have a dozen people attack you saying EXACTLY the same thing and the moderator says nothing but if you make the same claim with studies showing it to be true he will cut your posting because you are "repeating".

This is the climate "science" and the True Believers that will ALL talk as if you question them you are a stupid fool.

And then they wonder why research funding is being cut by at least a fifth and more cuts to come.


I am hopeful that the new administration will be more unbiased in their allocation of funding to scientists who truly want to find the cause of climate change. But knowing politicians I am skeptical. More likely, they will just cut off all funding.

Those that you call true believers may continue to be so until it starts to get colder (the pause doesn't cut it with them), or until they die and it takes a jack hammer to bury them.


http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=174 and
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html
http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/30/robust-evidence-noaa-temperature-data-hopelessly-corrupted-by-warming-bias-manipulation/#sthash.sWOAw4TW.dpbs

As you can see the data is so hopelessly counterfeited that we do not have the slightest idea what the climate is actually doing.

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Abstract
This assessment is a review of the common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands. I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases
containing 5% of water vapor and 0.039% of carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities/emissivities overlap. The result of these calculations is that the carbon dioxide attenuates the total absorptivity/emissivity of the water vapor, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface.

The sum result of this data demonstrates that there is no climate change beyond the recovery from the little ice age and normal cyclic weather variations.

So there is no climate change. It is mostly nothing but a figment of the imagination of man with his short lifespan compared to climate with it's millennia long patterns.

I've already pointed out to you that that "paper" is nonsense. The claim that there is a "common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands" is simply wrong. Nobody is making this claim.

Edit: And your links to media sites and blogs mean nothing - I could just as easily link to a string of media sites and blogs saying the opposite. The only reliable sources of scientific information are papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and material based on such papers.


The problem with these "peer-reviewed" scientific journals is that the "peers" are riding in the same boat as the authors. Were they not to corroborate the paper, they might sink the whole AGW boat.
25-03-2017 10:00
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex's" muffed: Were they not to corroborate the paper, they might sink the whole AGW boat.

frenziedmex is jealous 'cause it ain't got no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa to construct any peer-reviewed papers of any caliber.
Long ago "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex's" friends took the AGW denier liar whiner boat, newly christened & launched, & rolled & sank it. Fortunately, it was built so poorly, it sank in only 60 feet of water, just off the dry dock where it, as stated, was poorly built.
Meanwhile:
It appears that 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum could have reached its peak sometime ago, & like 2015 & 2016, will NOT reach 14 million square kilometers extent maximum.... just remarkable!! Arctic sea ice VOLUME growth should continue to or into April, but only as a bit more sea ice thickening, not as extra southward expansion frontage. All three years have been very close to the 14 million square kilometer mark, AND even for extended periods of time. But each of the trio has left a graph profile like a volcano with its top blown off & below the 14 mark.
Robert Scribbler makes mention of this year's Arctic sea ice maximum extent:
https://robertscribbler.com/2017/03/20/frailest-ever-winter-sea-ice-facing-a-cruel-cruel-summer/
Not only was 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum below 14 million square kiometers, it actually DIDN'T reach 13.9 million square kilometers. AND THAT SEA ICE was thin. Of course, March 2017 Arctic sea ice VOLUME was 9600 cubic kilometers less than the average of the 1980's, & 11,000(+?) cubic kilometers less than 1980, itself, but even a thousand (+?) cubic kilometers less than record breaking years, 2015 & 2016.
It is good that AGW denier liar whiners double-down & triple-down(?) on their bets that Earth is returning to an ice age.
Not mentioned earlier.... during this time of year, when yearly sea ice maximum variations are reduced..... 2017 Arctic sea ice maximum extent was well LESS THAN 2 million square kilometers than for the year 1979.
2017 Arctic sea ice extent is so low as of Mar. 22, that 1980 DECADE average sea ice extent was NOT as low until MAY 9. Beyond that tidbit was this largebit:
At these divergent times WHEN ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT WAS THE SAME, 1980 decade average VOLUME WAS 30,000+ cubic kilometers, while 2017 VOLUME is 18,600 cubic kilometers.
The sun is an arcdegree off the horizon at the North Pole.However, at the Arctic Circle & places further south where there is sea ice, the sun is 15 to 20+ arcdegrees above the horizon & daily rising in the sky at nearly its fastest rate of the year, one of the reasons the Arctic is presently losing sea ice. As mentioned above, 2+million KM2 is water that was sea ice in 1979 & readily absorbing solar energy, instead of reflecting solar heat to space.
Yeah, already excess AGW energy has a strong feedback, causing more solar energy to be absorbed. Wherever there are downwellings in that 2 million extra KM2 of water, solar energy is transported to bottom of continental shelves or into the deep Arctic Ocean for storage.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
From the article:
More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent. Though the atmosphere has been spared from the full extent of global warming for now, heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional warming in the future.
Edited on 25-03-2017 10:06
25-03-2017 11:08
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
@Litesong

I'm sorry, I could have saved you that long diatribe by explaining that most observers don't contest that the planet is now warming. The question is what is causing the warming, how much longer will the warming last, and how warm will it get. It is because of this that I originally posed the question that is the subject of this thread.
Edited on 25-03-2017 11:50
25-03-2017 16:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=174 and
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html
http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/30/robust-evidence-noaa-temperature-data-hopelessly-corrupted-by-warming-bias-manipulation/#sthash.sWOAw4TW.dpbs

As you can see the data is so hopelessly counterfeited that we do not have the slightest idea what the climate is actually doing.

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Abstract
This assessment is a review of the common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands. I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases
containing 5% of water vapor and 0.039% of carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities/emissivities overlap. The result of these calculations is that the carbon dioxide attenuates the total absorptivity/emissivity of the water vapor, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface.

The sum result of this data demonstrates that there is no climate change beyond the recovery from the little ice age and normal cyclic weather variations.

So there is no climate change. It is mostly nothing but a figment of the imagination of man with his short lifespan compared to climate with it's millennia long patterns.

I've already pointed out to you that that "paper" is nonsense. The claim that there is a "common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands" is simply wrong. Nobody is making this claim.

Edit: And your links to media sites and blogs mean nothing - I could just as easily link to a string of media sites and blogs saying the opposite. The only reliable sources of scientific information are papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and material based on such papers.


The problem with these "peer-reviewed" scientific journals is that the "peers" are riding in the same boat as the authors. Were they not to corroborate the paper, they might sink the whole AGW boat.

No, you've got the wrong end of the stick there. Science is a competitive business, and reviewers are generally looking for any good reason to turn down a paper. If they allow a paper to be published that is not based on firm evidence, it reflects badly on them. They have no incentive to wave though bad papers.

The journals themselves also don't want to get a reputation for publishing junk, which is why they have the papers submitted to them reviewed. At the same time, though, publishing a revolutionary paper is a big feather in their cap, so journals will always want reviewers to justify rejecting a potentially ground-breaking paper. Publishing a properly evidenced paper that proved AGW wrong would be a major coup for a journal!

The paper that Wake references could never be published in a scientific journal simply because it is of a very low standard. Take the opening sentence of the abstract:

This assessment is a review of the common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands.

This should be followed by a list of references e.g. (see [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]) to a selection of papers published in scientific journals that make the claimed common AGW argument. You can't make unsubstantiated statements like that and expect to be taken at your word. To pass peer review, every statement made in a paper must be supported by evidence.
Edited on 25-03-2017 16:38
25-03-2017 16:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
blah blah blah blah


Is your walker giving you trouble again today?

I see you've given up any pretence of actual discussion. No surprises there.


You have never for one second discussed anything here. You have preached your religion. You are the little kid hiding in the closet playing with yourself.
25-03-2017 16:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
@Litesong

I'm sorry, I could have saved you that long diatribe by explaining that most observers don't contest that the planet is now warming. The question is what is causing the warming, how much longer will the warming last, and how warm will it get. It is because of this that I originally posed the question that is the subject of this thread.


As I published already - fewer and fewer people believe that there is any global warming at all.
25-03-2017 17:33
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Next....

Heat waves have generally become more frequent and intense across the
United States in recent decades, particularly in the western United
States


https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/hurricanes-and-typhoons
25-03-2017 17:48
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
litesong wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Next....

Heat waves have generally become more frequent and intense across the
United States in recent decades, particularly in the western United
States


https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/hurricanes-and-typhoons


Why would I read bloomberg for info on intensity and frequency of hurricanes?

Guess I have to dig up this graph again.
Attached image:

25-03-2017 17:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Next....

Heat waves have generally become more frequent and intense across the
United States in recent decades, particularly in the western United
States


https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/hurricanes-and-typhoons


Why would I read bloomberg for info on intensity and frequency of hurricanes?

Guess I have to dig up this graph again.

That graph appears to indicate that storms in the Atlantic Basin have indeed become stronger and more frequent over the last few decades. It doesn't say anything about the United States though.
25-03-2017 18:00
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
You do know how to read the graph right? The yellow lines are simply named storms. With better technology, you'll see an increase in these because they don't have to send a flight crew out to see if it meets criteria. They can name it from the weather lab. Major hurricanes look pretty steady from 1935 and on, and sharply declining the last decade....supposedly the warmest period. Mmmm.

Here, try this one.
Attached image:


Edited on 25-03-2017 18:01
25-03-2017 18:05
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex" muffed: Litesong

I'm sorry, I could have saved you that long diatribe by explaining that most observers don't contest that the planet is now warming. The question is what is causing the warming...

"AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex" can't save a penny in Fort Knox. AGW denier liar whiners declared an ice age 20(?) years ago & doubled down, when the solar TSI was languid for scores of years & been low for 10 years (including a 3+ year period setting a 100 year record low TSI).

AGW denier liar whiners been backsteppin' for decades. They sidetrack, bleat, & baa & beat their oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un propaganda PR poop to a messy mash. AGW denier liar whiners ain't scientists, embrace every falsehood, & are unable to gain support from any avenue of science research.
Edited on 25-03-2017 18:11
25-03-2017 18:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
You do know how to read the graph right? The yellow lines are simply named storms. With better technology, you'll see an increase in these because they don't have to send a flight crew out to see if it meets criteria. They can name it from the weather lab. Major hurricanes look pretty steady from 1935 and on, and sharply declining the last decade....supposedly the warmest period. Mmmm.

Here, try this one.

Shouldn't "Number of hurricanes" be an integer value, as it is in the first graph? And why the difference in numbers between the two graphs?
Edited on 25-03-2017 18:08
25-03-2017 18:29
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
They are both NOAA
25-03-2017 18:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
They are both NOAA

Indeed, but you posted them to support your argument, so you should be prepared to answer questions about them. Why do the graphs differ, and how can you have a fractional number of hurricanes in a year? These are honest questions; I'm not trying to catch you out or anything.
25-03-2017 18:44
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
admittedly done on the fly...sneaking into my office to catch a break from cleaning now and then. The wife is on fire! Getting the house ready for a neihborhood party tonight. Back when I can....
25-03-2017 19:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
admittedly done on the fly...sneaking into my office to catch a break from cleaning now and then. The wife is on fire! Getting the house ready for a neihborhood party tonight. Back when I can....

Heh, real life intervenes. Tell your wife the cleaning can wait - someone is wrong on the internet and your attention is urgently needed!



Just kidding. Enjoy the party!
Edited on 25-03-2017 19:40
25-03-2017 20:35
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
I wrote:

The problem with these "peer-reviewed" scientific journals is that the "peers" are riding in the same boat as the authors. Were they not to corroborate the paper, they might sink the whole AGW boat.

surfacedetail wrote:

"No, you've got the wrong end of the stick there. Science is a competitive business, and reviewers are generally looking for any good reason to turn down a paper. If they allow a paper to be published that is not based on firm evidence, it reflects badly on them. They have no incentive to wave though bad papers.

The journals themselves also don't want to get a reputation for publishing junk, which is why they have the papers submitted to them reviewed. At the same time, though, publishing a revolutionary paper is a big feather in their cap, so journals will always want reviewers to justify rejecting a potentially ground-breaking paper. Publishing a properly evidenced paper that proved AGW wrong would be a major coup for a journal!"

With respect to the peer reviewers I totally agree that they are trying to be very thorough in their reviews based on the AGW assumption. But, if that assumption turns out to be flawed they go down with the AGW boat.

I also agree with you on the journals' motivation. But, until AGW doubters are included among the reviewers, and funding becomes available for potentially groundbreaking research proving AGW wrong or irrelevant, no such papers will be written. Perhaps the new administration will provide such funding, but I won't hold my breath.
Edited on 25-03-2017 20:39
25-03-2017 21:57
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
admittedly done on the fly...sneaking into my office to catch a break from cleaning now and then. The wife is on fire! Getting the house ready for a neihborhood party tonight. Back when I can....

Heh, real life intervenes. Tell your wife the cleaning can wait - someone is wrong on the internet and your attention is urgently needed!



Just kidding. Enjoy the party!


...cleaning my arse off. Won't be able to find anything for a week!

A very quick look at the 2 charts, there are some numbers a bit off...odd from the same source. I'm going to dig this in detail when I can.

What I took most issue with was the first line in the posted story. It read like this.

Focus the sun's beams on the tropical ocean at peak intensity. Add in warm, moist air. Stir the pot with the motion of the spinning globe. The results become the most powerful storms on Earth.


Well, if that's all we need is some warm water to make a hurricane...well then we should be getting one about once a week.....if the water is as warm as they say it is. It's simple an over simplified scare tactic.
26-03-2017 22:09
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Here, try this one.


Surface Detail wrote:
Shouldn't "Number of hurricanes" be an integer value, as it is in the first graph? And why the difference in numbers between the two graphs?


The previous chart is from our lovely EPA. Here is the wording from them.

All three curves have been smoothed using a five-year average, plotted at the middle year. The most recent average (2010–2014) is plotted at 2012.


Why they mess with raw numbers I don't know.
I will replace it with a possibly more accurate measure of total energy.

This is the ACE (accumulated Cyclone Energy)
Attached image:


Edited on 26-03-2017 22:47
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Blockchain to help Liverpool become world's first climate-positive city001-08-2018 18:50
Arctic sea ice loss, negative or positive feedback?4609-08-2017 01:21
The most debated feedback / forcings?129-04-2017 03:37
Climate Effect of CO2 Alone Without Feedback.2512-03-2017 01:25
Positive effects of global warming3505-12-2014 13:26
▲ 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