2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record

[wirebender]

How do you prove there's no measured decrease? Since we know CO2 absorbs IR and we know it's been increasing, either the measurements are flawed or we haven't been taking space data long enough. Either way, your statement is a long way from being proven and it certainly doesn't meet the logic test.

And here, yet again, you expose your extrordinary ignorance of the topic. You really don't know how one might measure the amount of LW radiation leaving the atmosphere?

Here konradv, I have posted this all before, but I will post it again. The data cover a period from 1970 to 2006. During that 38 year interval, atmospheric CO2 increased considerably. Rather than type the whole thing out again, I will simply cut and paste it from the original.

If AGW theory were correct and increasing atmospheric CO2 caused warming, it would happen because the increased CO2 would capture more long wave radiation in the 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometer wavelengths. That means that if one took a snapshot of the outgoing long wave radiation in say 1970 and another snapshot of the outgoing long wave radiation at a later date when more atmospheric CO2 was present, less outgoing long wave radiation in the 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometer wavelenghts would prove the basis of AGW theory. An equal or greater amount of outgoing longwave radiation in those wavelengths would disprove the basis for AGW theory as it would indicate that even though more atmospheric CO2 were present, no more long wave radiation was being absorbed by that increased CO2. Well, guess what?


Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.

The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. All found on the far left side of the graph. The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.

Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2.

 

[skookerasbil]

T-Shirt weather in New York today.....February 1st.........FTMFW!!!


Global Warming FTMFW!!!!!!!!!


Meanwhile, my mechanic who comes from Turkey says they are getting some sick-ass snow there..............cities are paralyzed. He said they never get snow like that............so I googled it and sure enough!!!

Heavy snow, blizzards wreak havoc in

Wonder if they side with the k00ks today???????

 

[code1211]

When I put CO2 into a spectrophotometer, it absorbs IR. When I add more, it absorbs more. QED

Poor konradv. You really should have paid more attention in science class, or perhaps you should have taken some science classes. CO2 has both absorption and emission spectra. The emission spectrum of CO2 is the exact opposite of its absorption spectra. QED, it emits exactly as much IR as it absorbs. Add more IR and it absorbs more but emits exactly the same amount as it absorbs. It can not, and does not retain heat.

CO2 serves to scatter IR, not concentrate it. Scattering produces a cooling effect, not a warming one.

Never said CO2 retains heat. I said it takes those absorbed photons and re-emits them, statisically 50% would return to earth. You seem to misunderstand heat. If a CO2 molecule absorbs and re-emits IR, there's no heat involved. That only occurs when IR energy is retained and the molecule vibrates(heat). I hope that helps with your understanding of the topic.

The way you are setting this up, you seem to rely on an infinite amount of IR energy and the GH effect of CO2 is also infinite.

The amount, while great, is measurable and therefore finite.

An ever increasing amount of CO2 will only reflect an amount that is continually decreasing as a function of the CO2. The first 20 ppm reflects much more per part than another 20 ppm added to the long end of 360 ppm.

The function of each CO2 molecule as a GHG decreases in potency as the amount of CO2 in the air increases.

Also, you seem to be describing a molecular level albedo as opposed to the GH effect of reflecting the heat back to the surface. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[code1211]

Never said CO2 retains heat. I said it takes those absorbed photons and re-emits them, statisically 50% would return to earth. You seem to misunderstand heat. If a CO2 molecule absorbs and re-emits IR, there's no heat involved. That only occurs when IR energy is retained and the molecule vibrates(heat). I hope that helps with your understanding of the topic.

And if there was a measured decrease in long wave IR being emitted to space you might have a point. As there is none, you don't.

How do you prove there's no measured decrease? Since we know CO2 absorbs IR and we know it's been increasing, either the measurements are flawed or we haven't been taking space data long enough. Either way, your statement is a long way from being proven and it certainly doesn't meet the logic test.

<snip>
The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3° C. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. So roughly, if the heating effect was a linear relationship, each 100 ppm contributes 1° C. With the atmospheric concentration rising by 2 ppm annually, it would go up by 100 ppm every 50 years and we would all fry as per the IPCC predictions.

But the relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. In 2006, Willis Eschenbach posted this graph on Climate Audit showing the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide relative to atmospheric concentration:
<snip>



The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide | Watts Up With That?

 

[wirebender]

<snip>
The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C.

The average temeprature of the atmosphere is -20 degrees. How does wrapping a mass of air with an average temperature of -20 degrees around a sphere with an average temperature of -15 degrees result in a temperature increase of 30 degrees? I would be intrested in hearing the physics to explain such a phenomenon.

Not trying to give you a hard time, but when I see statements like that, I feel the need to ask for a rational explanation.

 

[konradv]

Poor konradv. You really should have paid more attention in science class, or perhaps you should have taken some science classes. CO2 has both absorption and emission spectra. The emission spectrum of CO2 is the exact opposite of its absorption spectra. QED, it emits exactly as much IR as it absorbs. Add more IR and it absorbs more but emits exactly the same amount as it absorbs. It can not, and does not retain heat.

CO2 serves to scatter IR, not concentrate it. Scattering produces a cooling effect, not a warming one.

Never said CO2 retains heat. I said it takes those absorbed photons and re-emits them, statisically 50% would return to earth. You seem to misunderstand heat. If a CO2 molecule absorbs and re-emits IR, there's no heat involved. That only occurs when IR energy is retained and the molecule vibrates(heat). I hope that helps with your understanding of the topic.

The way you are setting this up, you seem to rely on an infinite amount of IR energy and the GH effect of CO2 is also infinite.

The amount, while great, is measurable and therefore finite.

An ever increasing amount of CO2 will only reflect an amount that is continually decreasing as a function of the CO2. The first 20 ppm reflects much more per part than another 20 ppm added to the long end of 360 ppm.

The function of each CO2 molecule as a GHG decreases in potency as the amount of CO2 in the air increases.

Also, you seem to be describing a molecular level albedo as opposed to the GH effect of reflecting the heat back to the surface. Am I understanding you correctly?

The molecular level IS the GH effect. Photons aren't reflected like earth's albedo, but absorbed and and re-emitted. The term GH is an analogy and doesn't work like a real GH. You could just as easily say "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect". BTW, heat(molecular motion) but photons which deliver the energy to cause motion.

 

[wirebender]

[
The molecular level IS the GH effect. Photons aren't reflected like earth's albedo, but absorbed and and re-emitted. The term GH is an analogy and doesn't work like a real GH. You could just as easily say "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect". BTW, heat(molecular motion) but photons which deliver the energy to cause motion.

I have already shown you konradv, that when you put a blanket over a body, the surface temperature of the body decreases wherever the blanket touches, just like the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts. And there is no pot lid over an open atmosphere. There is no lid over the atmosphere, and no blanket over the atmosphere. Show some evidence of a greenhouse effect in an open atmosphere where it counts. The satellite record I provide above shows pretty clearly that so called greenhouse gasses are not reducing the amount of outgoing LW radiation to space as the greenhouse hypothesis predicts.

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks, Rolling Thunder, konradv and many others just dont get it. if the temps arent rising (despite the concerted efforts to manipulate the data) then it isnt warming! it may be warm. but until it goes up or down it isnt warming or cooling.

for instance, if temps rose 0.3C from 1990-2000, that is warming. the deception comes in when you add the 0.3C increase from 1990-2000, to the no change from 2000-2010, and still say the warming trend is 'accelerating'!!! if I grew 4 feet from birth to 15yrs, and stayed the same since, the slope of the trend line is still positive. using climate science statistics, Im still growing, even though I am not

 

[IanC]

[
The molecular level IS the GH effect. Photons aren't reflected like earth's albedo, but absorbed and and re-emitted. The term GH is an analogy and doesn't work like a real GH. You could just as easily say "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect". BTW, heat(molecular motion) but photons which deliver the energy to cause motion.

I have already shown you konradv, that when you put a blanket over a body, the surface temperature of the body decreases wherever the blanket touches, just like the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts. And there is no pot lid over an open atmosphere. There is no lid over the atmosphere, and no blanket over the atmosphere. Show some evidence of a greenhouse effect in an open atmosphere where it counts. The satellite record I provide above shows pretty clearly that so called greenhouse gasses are not reducing the amount of outgoing LW radiation to space as the greenhouse hypothesis predicts.

wirebender, you are just as crazed as the CAGW true believers. a blanket significantly lowers the escape of heat from the body which means it takes less energy to keep the core at 37C. the energy from the sun is very constant so if something chokes off the escape of radiation then the same amount of energy from the sun can heat the surface to a higher temperature. you argue insignificant points and refuse to listen when they are refuted. the next time it is really cold in your area talk off your clothes to warm up and go outside for a sleep. with any luck we wont have to listen to your BS anymore.

 

[wirebender]

wirebender, you are just as crazed as the CAGW true believers. a blanket significantly lowers the escape of heat from the body which means it takes less energy to keep the core at 37C. the energy from the sun is very constant so if something chokes off the escape of radiation then the same amount of energy from the sun can heat the surface to a higher temperature. you argue insignificant points and refuse to listen when they are refuted. the next time it is really cold in your area talk off your clothes to warm up and go outside for a sleep. with any luck we wont have to listen to your BS anymore.

Unlike you, ian, I respect the laws of nature. The second law predicts that when a cooler blanket is placed over a warmer body, energy transfers from the warmer body to the cooler blanket. An infrared camera will demonstrate this and all you have to do is look. The surface temperature of the body drops wherever the blanket touches. The atmosphere can not be analogized as a blanket because there is no restriction of convection or conduction in the open atmosphere by so called greenhouse gasses. You keep demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of physics.

You have been shown the math and your faith keeps you from seeing the truth. Unfortunate.

 

[konradv]

wirebender, you are just as crazed as the CAGW true believers. a blanket significantly lowers the escape of heat from the body which means it takes less energy to keep the core at 37C. the energy from the sun is very constant so if something chokes off the escape of radiation then the same amount of energy from the sun can heat the surface to a higher temperature. you argue insignificant points and refuse to listen when they are refuted. the next time it is really cold in your area talk off your clothes to warm up and go outside for a sleep. with any luck we wont have to listen to your BS anymore.

Unlike you, ian, I respect the laws of nature. The second law predicts that when a cooler blanket is placed over a warmer body, energy transfers from the warmer body to the cooler blanket. An infrared camera will demonstrate this and all you have to do is look. The surface temperature of the body drops wherever the blanket touches. The atmosphere can not be analogized as a blanket because there is no restriction of convection or conduction in the open atmosphere by so called greenhouse gasses. You keep demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of physics.

You have been shown the math and your faith keeps you from seeing the truth. Unfortunate.

True, but heat will transfer much more slowly with the blanket there. If the blanket is cooler, fine, you're still warmer than without it.

 

[konradv]

Old Rocks, Rolling Thunder, konradv and many others just dont get it. if the temps arent rising (despite the concerted efforts to manipulate the data) then it isnt warming! it may be warm. but until it goes up or down it isnt warming or cooling.

for instance, if temps rose 0.3C from 1990-2000, that is warming. the deception comes in when you add the 0.3C increase from 1990-2000, to the no change from 2000-2010, and still say the warming trend is 'accelerating'!!! if I grew 4 feet from birth to 15yrs, and stayed the same since, the slope of the trend line is still positive. using climate science statistics, Im still growing, even though I am not

You're talking about a short period of time in order to make your point. Who ever said the warming would be constant? I think you're taking the deniers' "they don't take into account natural cycles" meme and giving it too much credence. This seems like another case of "they only count when I want them to count".

 

[westwall]

Old Rocks, Rolling Thunder, konradv and many others just dont get it. if the temps arent rising (despite the concerted efforts to manipulate the data) then it isnt warming! it may be warm. but until it goes up or down it isnt warming or cooling.

for instance, if temps rose 0.3C from 1990-2000, that is warming. the deception comes in when you add the 0.3C increase from 1990-2000, to the no change from 2000-2010, and still say the warming trend is 'accelerating'!!! if I grew 4 feet from birth to 15yrs, and stayed the same since, the slope of the trend line is still positive. using climate science statistics, Im still growing, even though I am not

You're talking about a short period of time in order to make your point. Who ever said the warming would be constant? I think you're taking the deniers' "they don't take into account natural cycles" meme and giving it too much credence. This seems like another case of "they only count when I want them to count".

Natural cycles is ALL WE TALK ABOUT! It's you silly people who invested these magical powers into the CO2 molecule. You are the ones who claim that so long as CO2 increases there can be nothing but a warming. It's YOU who claimed that natural cycles were no longer in play.

Sheesh, keep your lies straight konny!

 

[code1211]

<snip>
The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C.

The average temeprature of the atmosphere is -20 degrees. How does wrapping a mass of air with an average temperature of -20 degrees around a sphere with an average temperature of -15 degrees result in a temperature increase of 30 degrees? I would be intrested in hearing the physics to explain such a phenomenon.

Not trying to give you a hard time, but when I see statements like that, I feel the need to ask for a rational explanation.

This is the Greenhouse Effect.

 

[IanC]

<snip>
The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C.

The average temeprature of the atmosphere is -20 degrees. How does wrapping a mass of air with an average temperature of -20 degrees around a sphere with an average temperature of -15 degrees result in a temperature increase of 30 degrees? I would be intrested in hearing the physics to explain such a phenomenon.

Not trying to give you a hard time, but when I see statements like that, I feel the need to ask for a rational explanation.

This is the Greenhouse Effect.

wirebender conveniently forgets that a -20C atmosphere is a lot warmer than a -270C outer space. he also is confused that it is not the atmosphere that warms the planet, it is the sun. all the atmosphere does is reduce the energy loss to cold space which changes the equilibrium temperature at the surface or any level that you wish to define.

konradv is too tightly focussed on CO2. he thinks adding CO2 can be seen in isolation but in reality there are many factors that interact with each other in a stasis fashion that keeps the earth in a tight range of temperatures. apparently the sun varies less than 1% but the dip in output during the Maunder Minimum sent the earth into the LIA. why then was the earth warmer than today 2 billion years ago when the output was ~15% less?

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks, Rolling Thunder, konradv and many others just dont get it. if the temps arent rising (despite the concerted efforts to manipulate the data) then it isnt warming! it may be warm. but until it goes up or down it isnt warming or cooling.

for instance, if temps rose 0.3C from 1990-2000, that is warming. the deception comes in when you add the 0.3C increase from 1990-2000, to the no change from 2000-2010, and still say the warming trend is 'accelerating'!!! if I grew 4 feet from birth to 15yrs, and stayed the same since, the slope of the trend line is still positive. using climate science statistics, Im still growing, even though I am not

You're talking about a short period of time in order to make your point. Who ever said the warming would be constant? I think you're taking the deniers' "they don't take into account natural cycles" meme and giving it too much credence. This seems like another case of "they only count when I want them to count".

Natural cycles is ALL WE TALK ABOUT! It's you silly people who invested these magical powers into the CO2 molecule. You are the ones who claim that so long as CO2 increases there can be nothing but a warming. It's YOU who claimed that natural cycles were no longer in play.

Sheesh, keep your lies straight konny!

hahahaha. no kidding. they take one easily measured component of the climate system and treat it like it is the control knob even though it probably has negligable effect, especially at these concentrations. if it was going from 10ppm to 50ppm that would make a sizable difference, of course we wouldnt be here because there wouldnt be plants to feed animals at those concentrations but it would be much more important in that range.

 

[wirebender]

True, but heat will transfer much more slowly with the blanket there. If the blanket is cooler, fine, you're still warmer than without it.

That is because the blanket, like the glass walls of a greenhouse block convection and conduction, not because it is possible to transfer energy from a cooler object to a warmer object. There is nothing in the atmosphere blocking convection and conduction.

In fact, konradv, the energy budgets so often talked about when discussing the AGW hypothesis are restricted to radiation. They do not even take convection and conduction into consideration. Radiation accounts for roughly 7 percent of the energy movement within the earth's system. The forces that account for a full 93% of the movement of energy within the earths system are completely disregarded.

Tell me konradv, how much of reality do you believe the models upon which AGW alarmism are based actually represent? Could it possibly be 7% or less?

 

[wirebender]

This is the Greenhouse Effect.

Describe the physics by which you believe wrapping a -15 degree object in a -20 degree blanket results in a 30 degree temperature rise. Simply stating that it is the greenhouse effect doesn't carry much weight. Jump in your freezer and see how much of a greenhouse effect your 36 degree body generates in the 17 degree freezer.


You will be starting off with a considerably warmer temperature than the blackbody temperature of the earth and the atmosphere in the freezer is not nearly as cold as the average temperature of the atmosphere. My bet is that you don't manage any greenhouse effect at all.

If you survive, let me know how it worked out for you.

 

[wirebender]

wirebender conveniently forgets that a -20C atmosphere is a lot warmer than a -270C outer space. he also is confused that it is not the atmosphere that warms the planet, it is the sun. all the atmosphere does is reduce the energy loss to cold space which changes the equilibrium temperature at the surface or any level that you wish to define.

I don't forget any of that ian. I also don't attempt to get around the laws of physics in an effort to transfer heat from cool objects to warm objects, and I don't buy into the myth of gross energy transfers in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[IanC]

wirebender, you are just as crazed as the CAGW true believers. a blanket significantly lowers the escape of heat from the body which means it takes less energy to keep the core at 37C. the energy from the sun is very constant so if something chokes off the escape of radiation then the same amount of energy from the sun can heat the surface to a higher temperature. you argue insignificant points and refuse to listen when they are refuted. the next time it is really cold in your area talk off your clothes to warm up and go outside for a sleep. with any luck we wont have to listen to your BS anymore.

Unlike you, ian, I respect the laws of nature. The second law predicts that when a cooler blanket is placed over a warmer body, energy transfers from the warmer body to the cooler blanket. An infrared camera will demonstrate this and all you have to do is look. The surface temperature of the body drops wherever the blanket touches. The atmosphere can not be analogized as a blanket because there is no restriction of convection or conduction in the open atmosphere by so called greenhouse gasses. You keep demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of physics.

You have been shown the math and your faith keeps you from seeing the truth. Unfortunate.

wirebender- all you have is tortured and distorted attempts at logic that ignore realities.

example- a light bulb comes to equilibrium temperature when the glass bulb is radiating away the same amount of energy as it is receiving from the filament. if you toss a blanket on the bulb it will initially drop the temperature of the bulb but then the temp will continue to rise until the outside of the blanket is radiating away the same amount of energy that the filament is emitting. unfortunately a blanket is not a good conductor of heat so the inside of the blanket need to get very hot to transmit enough energy to get the outside warm enough. typically hot enough to start a fire. so your initial, transient drop in temp is followed by a steady increase until equilibrium is reached or a fire starts.

the human body does not have a fixed energy output except for the basal metabolic rate. if the core is 37C it is happy, if the core is cooler then the body takes steps to produce more heat from burning fuel and reducing blood flow to extremities, if it is warmer then more blood is sent to the extremities where sweat is released to make use of the heat transfer of water phase change. when you add a blanket to a human body there may be an initial trnasient temp drop at the skin but the overall heat loss diminishes and the body uses less fuel to maintain its favoured temperature range.

the earth does have a relatively fixed energy input from the sun. the surface/atmosphere also uses water phase change to control temperatures in a desired range. evaporation, clouds, types of clouds, convection due to water making the air lighter, etc all move energy from the surface to space. the energy moved in just a single thunderstorm is huge, many many orders of magnitude higher than radiative effects in the same time frame.