E
estesbob
Guest
More evidence of global warming .
- Status
W
weller2
Guest
Because it’s a physical impossibility for a planet’s heat content to remain constant while atmospheric opacity in the IR band is increasing due to increasing CO2. You can complain all you want about deficient models, but you can’t change basic physical properties of CO2.
As the excess heat is not going into the atmosphere, then it must be sinking somewhere (pun intended) and the ocean is a logical candidate.
E
estesbob
Guest
Or more probable there is no excess heat
So the warming is causing cooling.Snow jokes, but it’s good people understand that AGW creates a greater risk of greater precipitation events, bec warmer air holds more water vapor. And it’s good they understand that this greater precipitation can come down as deluges AND as snowstorms and blizzards, AND severe, damaging hail storms.
So, if you are in more northerly latitudes, expect more snow fall…brought to you by those who emit GHGs (us humans)
W
weller2
Guest
Lack of excess heat would mean that at least one of the following laws is violated on planetary scale: conservation of energy, blackbody radiation, Gauss’ law or Beer-Lambert’s law.
That would have implications far exceeding global warming and would be very hard to miss.
E
estesbob
Guest
OR it could be that the theory that increased CO2 cause atmospheric warming is wrong
E
estesbob
Guest
According, evidently, to a theory advanced by Lambert and Gauss over a BeerSo the warming is causing cooling.
W
weller2
Guest
In case you didn’t know, London and Irkutsk are practically on the same latitude. One of the reasons the former has much nicer climate than the latter is the Gulf Stream – which, according to some research, may shut down due to warming of the ocean. In this case, climate in London would indeed cool down (not to the level of Irkutsk, but still).So the warming is causing cooling.
W
weller2
Guest
Again, the basic physics dictates that (1) increased CO2 decreases the outgoing IR flux through the Karman line, therefore (2) the total energy contained inside the Karman line (well, Karman sphere, actually) must increase.
(1) being untrue would mean that Beer-Lambert’s law does not hold. Ain’t gonna happen.
(2) being untrue would mean that Gauss’s law does not hold. Ain’t gonna happen either.
While Gauss’ law requires that the excess energy must be stored somewhere below the Karman line, it does not require that energy must be stored in the atmosphere.
Also, any putative mechanism to transfer energy out of the planet outside the thermal IR band (where the CO2 absorption window happens to be) would violate Stefan-Boltzmann’s law (blackbody radiation).
W
weller2
Guest
Given that de Broglie’s theory was formulated over a glass of cognac and Banach’s theory was formulated over obscene amounts of vodka…
E
estesbob
Guest
none of which matters if there is no excessive energy or heat
E
estesbob
Guest
“Global Warming” Advocates Plan March Amid Record Cold Temperatures
Snow hits the ground in seven states as advocates demand U.N. response to "global warming"
infowars.com/global-warming-advocates-plan-march-amid-record-cold-temperatures/
Snow hits the ground in seven states as advocates demand U.N. response to "global warming"
infowars.com/global-warming-advocates-plan-march-amid-record-cold-temperatures/
Reminds me of the Global Warming summit that got buried in snow…
Or the protest that was likewise snowed out.
E
Ender
Guest
This objection makes it seem as if every period of any length is simply arbitrary, and you cannot make any case for a 6 year period based on anything climate scientists have actually written. You can, however, make that case for 15 and 17 year periods.
Here is what they said:* The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.*
The simulations “rule out” the possibility of no warming over a 15 year period. No model even allowed the possibility (at the 95% level) that such a “hiatus” could occur, and every model was wrong.
This is disappointing. Scientists at LLNL said that 17 years was significant and you dismiss it as meaningless. That periods of time greater than 17 years would yield more accurate results hardly means that the data from a 17 year period is meaningless. It is one thing to dispute LLNL’s assertion, but quite another to simply dismiss it as irrelevant.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
This assertion is simply wrong.
It might be true if the only thing affecting the planet’s heat content was CO2 absorption, but it isn’t, and this is the problem with all of these gross oversimplifications of the system. You claim that increased “atmospheric opacity in the IR band” will automatically raise the Earth’s temperature, but this is based on the assumption that nothing else happens in response to that warming, which is a bogus assumption. The real question is whether the climate is a self-regulating system such that an increase here causes a consequent decrease there that keeps the system balanced.
If this was just about the physical properties of CO2 I’m pretty sure scientists would be able to create accurate models. Since the models have been inaccurate (because there are so many other factors) it should be reasonably obvious there is more involved.
If you assume there is excess heat and can’t find it you can postulate its whereabouts to be wherever you like, but assuming that it exists in the oceans is a long way from demonstrating that it is actually there, especially in the absence of a theory that explains how it could happen.
Ender
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Just what I’ve been saying all along – GW is making neg arctic oscillations (Rossby waves, Nor-easters) more common, changing the usual west-east pattern to a more frequent north-south pattern.
Need to mitigation AGW, reduce GHGs, do what you can, join the NYC Climate March…
When will they ever learn?..The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind…
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I fully realize the uselessness of the 6 year period in relating to anything climate scientists have written. The only reason I mentioned it was because you wrote:
Since you were chiding me for using longer periods to determine “current trends” in Theo520’s statement I decided to show that Theo520’s statement was wrong using shorter periods as well. Remember that this started with a report that Lynn cited from the National Audubon Society that considered what would happen if “global warming continues on its current trajectory”. What they meant by this non-technical term is anybody’s guess, but it is quite clear they were not referring to a flat trajectory. My observation about 36 years being a more likely reference period was meant to drain some of the humor from Theo520’s posting. It was not meant to be an argument over whether global warming is or is not happening.
It is funny that this statement by NOAA scientists is taken as gospel truth, while other statements made by NOAA scientists are treated with the utmost skepticism. If this statement is a scientifically factual statement about statistics, then why do we have to take their word for it? Isn’t it possible they were wrong about this qualification of what it would take to invalidate the models, since they were supposedly wrong about so much else too?
What the scientists at LLNL said was not meaningless because they probably added the “associated quantitative metric for confidence” I was calling for, but that part got left out in the quoting and simplifying, even by their own news feed .
W
weller2
Guest
If there’s no extra heat, then 300 years of physics very basic physics is wrong. Ain’t gonna happen, sorry.
By the way, your reasoning is akin to claiming that the Iraq war was free to the taxpayer, because there was no corresponding item in the DoD budget, so nobody can’t find the money which went into Iraq, so it means that no money went into Iraq. Completely ignoring a huge increase in budget deficit combined with effective spending freeze in other areas, which strongly hinted that a huge amount of money is leaking somewhere and Iraq being the most logical destination.
W
weller2
Guest
So what is your mechanism for transfering heat out of the planet, through the Karman line, outside the thermal IR band?
To use a financial example, all I’m looking at is cash flow in/out of the company, and I’m seeing that the cash flow means that the company has net profit, although the balance sheet shows zero. From this I conclude that the company is hiding this extra money somewhere. What exactly they are doing with this money at the moment is secondary.
You’re claiming that I must be wrong, because by looking just at the in/out cash flow, I’m ignoring depreciation and other fine accounting details. If the balance sheet is zero then it obviously means that there was no extra cash influx.
Which one of us is more likely to be defrauded here?
Indeed. You are looking at a balance sheet. You are expecting an increase based upon financial reports that are from questionable sources.To use a financial example, all I’m looking at is cash flow in/out of the company, and I’m seeing that the cash flow means that the company has net profit, although the balance sheet shows zero. From this I conclude that the company is hiding this extra money somewhere. What exactly they are doing with this money at the moment is secondary.
You’re claiming that I must be wrong, because by looking just at the in/out cash flow, I’m ignoring depreciation and other fine accounting details. If the balance sheet is zero then it obviously means that there was no extra cash influx.
Which one of us is more likely to be defrauded here?
But rather then question the reports that claim you should have an increase, you have jumped to the conclusion that you are being defrauded.
I would say such a financial analyst has been very foolish for over a decade.
If one suspects they are being defrauded, they should be going over all of the financials with a microscope to find where the crime (if any) is taking place.
- Status