2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record

[westwall]

Ocean Currents and Climate

Article for the curious.

Ancient history and now superceded by improved science.

And of course you've read my link, so, post the new and improved version so I may become up to date.

Far too long and involved. Start here, plenty to get you started. Not all of it is accurate but there is a ton of info you've never seen.


Climate Depot

 

[Middleoftheroad]

OK, Code, so you are stating that GHGs, indeed, are responsible for the present warmth that we enjoy. So, then, how do you square that with saying that adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will not increase the amount of energy retained?

Read for comprehension rocks. He just compared earth with mercury. Mercury has no atmosphere to speak of and is very hot in the daytime. Our moon has no atmosphere to speak of and is also very hot in the daytime. We have an atmosphere and are relatively cool in the daytime. It is clear that it is our atmosphere that is keeping us cool.

GHG's other than water vapor have no capacity to hold energy within the atmosphere. Feel free to describe the mechanism by which you believe it can happen and name a physical law that supports and predicts the mechanism.

How about Venus? That goes 100% against what you said. No water vapor, almost completely GHG's (95% CO2). Venus despite being twice as far from the sun as Mercury is actually hotter then Mercury. But didn't you say atmosphere's keep planets cool?
" The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).[38] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of −220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C,[39] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. The surface of Venus is often said to resemble the mythical Hell."

Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[konradv]

As always, half a truth is better than none. GHG, as I understand the effect does warm the Earth. Without them, the planet would be a frozen globe with no life. No CO2 means no carbon and no carbon based life.

The difference in what you inferred and in what i implied is the degree.

As I understand it, CO2 is but one of many factors affecting our current climate. Additions seem to have a pretty weak effect at that at the current concentrations.

Add more and the change is hardly noticeable. Take it all away and it's fatal.

Where's the part where I said that CO2 is responsible for the current warming? That's your position as I understand it.

Kind of light on hard facts to be calling the effects of added CO2 "weak" and "hard noticeable". Given a 35% +/- increase in CO2 over historical averages, that would be an additional 13% of "forcing" on a logrithmic scale. 'Hardly insignificant' would be more like it.

The problem dear konny is the "forcings" only seem to work in computer models. The real world seems to not pay so much attention to them.

Whenever the 35% figure is mentioned, why does someone always say "but the increases aren't arithmetic, but logarithmic"? If they don't really work, why do the skeptics keep bringing it up? Seems like whenever you're caught in double-talk, you move the goal posts. It's hardly what I'd call dispassionate, scientific discourse!

 

[Old Rocks]

Ancient history and now superceded by improved science.

And of course you've read my link, so, post the new and improved version so I may become up to date.

Far too long and involved. Start here, plenty to get you started. Not all of it is accurate but there is a ton of info you've never seen.


Climate Depot

A blog from an asshole without any science expertise at all. So typical of what Walleyes posts for evidence. Yet, when someone posts something from the American Geophysical Union, he states that is is untrue. Some geologist.

Marc Morano - SourceWatch

Marc Morano, who has no climate science expertise, runs the anti-climate-science website ClimateDepot.com for the anti-regulation Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which lists him as Director of Communications

 

[code1211]

OK, Code, so you are stating that GHGs, indeed, are responsible for the present warmth that we enjoy. So, then, how do you square that with saying that adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will not increase the amount of energy retained?

As always, half a truth is better than none. GHG, as I understand the effect does warm the Earth. Without them, the planet would be a frozen globe with no life. No CO2 means no carbon and no carbon based life.

The difference in what you inferred and in what i implied is the degree.

As I understand it, CO2 is but one of many factors affecting our current climate. Additions seem to have a pretty weak effect at that at the current concentrations.

Add more and the change is hardly noticeable. Take it all away and it's fatal.

Where's the part where I said that CO2 is responsible for the current warming? That's your position as I understand it.

Kind of light on hard facts to be calling the effects of added CO2 "weak" and "hard noticeable". Given a 35% +/- increase in CO2 over historical averages, that would be an additional 13% of "forcing" on a logrithmic scale. 'Hardly insignificant' would be more like it.

That is the very base of what we are discussing, isn't it?

The first 20 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere caused, it is generally accepted, an increase in the climate's temperature of about 30 degrees c.

The succeeding increases of each increment of 20 ppm have had dramatically reduced effects. In truth, it requires twice the increase of the previous increment to produce the same warming again.

The post Industrial Revolution incremental increases have shown 5 jumps of the base increment of 20 ppm.

According to your implications, we should now be at a temperature of 5x30 degrees higher than the temperature levels of the pre-Industrial Revolution. This assumes that the the warming effect of CO2 is unchanged at higher concentrations.

That would mean a Global average temperature of about 206 degrees f. If we are to accept the assertion that a small amount of CO2 produced the initial warming, and that is the basis of the AGW story, then simple observation reveals that the GH effect of CO2 diminishes in higher concentrations.

The winter in Indy has been mild, but the water in the White River is not even close to the boiling point.

The impact of the addition of 5 increments of the 20 ppm increase has been about 0.7 degrees c. since 1850. Do all the math you like. The warming you say should be happening is not happening.

What has happened to the other 149.3 degrees f. of warming that we might expect if CO2's impact were not constantly weakening at the higher concentrations?

 

[code1211]

Ocean Currents and Climate

Article for the curious.

The warming oceans have been the crutch of the AGW Crowd for some years now. The Argo Array of buoys have been bobbing up and down in the ocean taking the temps world wide and the result has been to reveal the the warming has been

Wait for it...

Wait...

Cooling!

Not much cooling, but cooling is not warming. Another of the predicted result of the AGW Crowd crashes and burns. If it weren't for the burning predictions of their experts, the Warmers would be without any warmth at all.

The explanation is that cooling means "less rapid warming".

I wonder what losing means...


<snip>
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
<snip>

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR

 

[code1211]

OK, Code, so you are stating that GHGs, indeed, are responsible for the present warmth that we enjoy. So, then, how do you square that with saying that adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will not increase the amount of energy retained?

Read for comprehension rocks. He just compared earth with mercury. Mercury has no atmosphere to speak of and is very hot in the daytime. Our moon has no atmosphere to speak of and is also very hot in the daytime. We have an atmosphere and are relatively cool in the daytime. It is clear that it is our atmosphere that is keeping us cool.

GHG's other than water vapor have no capacity to hold energy within the atmosphere. Feel free to describe the mechanism by which you believe it can happen and name a physical law that supports and predicts the mechanism.

How about Venus? That goes 100% against what you said. No water vapor, almost completely GHG's (95% CO2). Venus despite being twice as far from the sun as Mercury is actually hotter then Mercury. But didn't you say atmosphere's keep planets cool?
" The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).[38] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of &#8722;220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C,[39] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. The surface of Venus is often said to resemble the mythical Hell."

Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atmosphere does have an impact on the temperature. There can be no doubt about that.

Venus and Earth are so different from one another that comparisons are deception without ample disclaimers. Consider that a bend in the orbit of our little planet of 3 degrees from circular to oblique results in an ice age. Back to Circular and we are where we are now.

Our existence depends on a very narrow ideal of about a 5 degree swing from cool to warm.

Now, adjust that 3 degree wiggle in the orbit to the degree that the distance from the Sun is about 2/3 of the distance we currently enjoy and the warming effect is multiplied. Really multiplied.

It would be interesting if the two planets were in more similar orbits, but that would probably mean disaster as we crashed into each other.


The Solar System

 

[wirebender]

How about Venus? That goes 100% against what you said. No water vapor, almost completely GHG's (95% CO2). Venus despite being twice as far from the sun as Mercury is actually hotter then Mercury. But didn't you say atmosphere's keep planets cool?
" The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).[38] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of &#8722;220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C,[39] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. The surface of Venus is often said to resemble the mythical Hell."

Venus? Are you kidding. The atmosphere of venus is more than 90 times that of earth. Does PV=nRT mean anything to you? Of course if you travel up into the atmosphere of venus to a level where the atmospheric pressure is the same as that of earth, oddly enough, the temperature is almost identical to our own even though it is composed mostly of so called greenhouse gasses.

In short, there is no greenouse effect on venus, there is proof, however, that the ideal gas laws are correct.

Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

 

[wirebender]

You are being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.

Hot in the Sun light and very cold in the dark.

Of course not. The difference in the night time temperatures can be easily explained by water vapor in the atmosphere. Look at a coastal area and a desert along the same lattitude. Both will have roughly the same atmospheric CO2 content but the water vapor content will be quite different. The coastal area will be considerably cooler during the day than the desert because of the water vapor. At night, the desert will cool off much more quickly than the coastal area. Again, due to the presence of water vapor.

The fact is that the atmosphere keeps us cool during the day and the water vapor present in the atmosphere and its capacity to absorb and actually hold heat (unlike the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses) prevents a quick cool down of the night time side of the earth.

 

[IanC]

konradv- I dont think you have this whole log thing straight in your head. we have gone from 280ppm to almost 400ppm, about a 40% rise, therefore we should have seen about 55-65% of the increase due to doubling the CO2 to 560ppm. physics says ~1C per doubling so we should have seen 0.6C increase. the IPCC says 2-5C with a best guesstimate of 3C. 60% of 3C is 1.8C. which is a more reasonable account of what has happened? personally I think the earth has homeostatic systems that will reduce the 1C per doubling that physics predict but I find the IPCC figure of 3C per doubling to be farfetched

 

[edthecynic]

Ocean Currents and Climate

Article for the curious.

The warming oceans have been the crutch of the AGW Crowd for some years now. The Argo Array of buoys have been bobbing up and down in the ocean taking the temps world wide and the result has been to reveal the the warming has been

Wait for it...

Wait...

Cooling!

Not much cooling, but cooling is not warming. Another of the predicted result of the AGW Crowd crashes and burns. If it weren't for the burning predictions of their experts, the Warmers would be without any warmth at all.

The explanation is that cooling means "less rapid warming".

I wonder what losing means...


<snip>
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
<snip>

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR

Wait for it...

Wait...

BULLSHIT!

You gotta love deniers, the way they cling to erroneous data. Like using very old ARGO data from when the buoys were giving false depth readings. Notice the source they cite is from 2008!!!

Here is the chart of the ARGO data after the defective buoys were removed.

Global Change Analysis

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ancient history and now superceded by improved science.

And of course you've read my link, so, post the new and improved version so I may become up to date.

Far too long and involved. Start here, plenty to get you started. Not all of it is accurate but there is a ton of info you've never seen.


Climate Depot

Are you serious?

 

[code1211]

You are being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.

Hot in the Sun light and very cold in the dark.

Of course not. The difference in the night time temperatures can be easily explained by water vapor in the atmosphere. Look at a coastal area and a desert along the same lattitude. Both will have roughly the same atmospheric CO2 content but the water vapor content will be quite different. The coastal area will be considerably cooler during the day than the desert because of the water vapor. At night, the desert will cool off much more quickly than the coastal area. Again, due to the presence of water vapor.

The fact is that the atmosphere keeps us cool during the day and the water vapor present in the atmosphere and its capacity to absorb and actually hold heat (unlike the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses) prevents a quick cool down of the night time side of the earth.

As I said above...

 

[code1211]

And of course you've read my link, so, post the new and improved version so I may become up to date.

Far too long and involved. Start here, plenty to get you started. Not all of it is accurate but there is a ton of info you've never seen.


Climate Depot

Are you serious?

Out of deference to your political bent, I quoted NPR. Care to take a look at that?

 

[westwall]

And of course you've read my link, so, post the new and improved version so I may become up to date.

Far too long and involved. Start here, plenty to get you started. Not all of it is accurate but there is a ton of info you've never seen.


Climate Depot

A blog from an asshole without any science expertise at all. So typical of what Walleyes posts for evidence. Yet, when someone posts something from the American Geophysical Union, he states that is is untrue. Some geologist.

Marc Morano - SourceWatch

Marc Morano, who has no climate science expertise, runs the anti-climate-science website ClimateDepot.com for the anti-regulation Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which lists him as Director of Communications

And you reference blogs put forth by assholes who's very livelihood is predicated upon keeping the Public Money flowing to them. You fail.

 

[westwall]

And of course you've read my link, so, post the new and improved version so I may become up to date.

Far too long and involved. Start here, plenty to get you started. Not all of it is accurate but there is a ton of info you've never seen.


Climate Depot

Are you serious?

Quite serious. It is a clearing house of relevant studies and news reports. As I said, some is pure crap, but there are links to serious peer reviewed studies that call everything the AGW supporters claim into question.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ocean Currents and Climate

Article for the curious.

"They noted that a warmer ocean would tend to evaporate more of its carbon dioxide gas ( CO2) and also water vapor into the air, whereas a colder ocean would tend to absorb both gases. "

Did you actually read the article?

 

[westwall]

Ocean Currents and Climate

Article for the curious.

"They noted that a warmer ocean would tend to evaporate more of its carbon dioxide gas ( CO2) and also water vapor into the air, whereas a colder ocean would tend to absorb both gases. "

Did you actually read the article?

No, they never do. They look at one line that seems to support what they are saying and then run with it. olfraud does it all the time.

 

[Valerie]

Situation 'tragic' as winter weather blankets Europe - CNN.com

 

[Middleoftheroad]

How about Venus? That goes 100% against what you said. No water vapor, almost completely GHG's (95% CO2). Venus despite being twice as far from the sun as Mercury is actually hotter then Mercury. But didn't you say atmosphere's keep planets cool?
" The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).[38] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of &#8722;220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C,[39] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. The surface of Venus is often said to resemble the mythical Hell."

Venus? Are you kidding. The atmosphere of venus is more than 90 times that of earth. Does PV=nRT mean anything to you? Of course if you travel up into the atmosphere of venus to a level where the atmospheric pressure is the same as that of earth, oddly enough, the temperature is almost identical to our own even though it is composed mostly of so called greenhouse gasses.

In short, there is no greenouse effect on venus, there is proof, however, that the ideal gas laws are correct.

Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/QUOTE]

So just to make sure we are on the same page.
You are saying that atmosphere cools down a planet, but more atmosphere heats it up.
And water vapor is the only GHG that keeps heat in, and also that all gases keep heat in.
Nope I don't see any contradictions between your two posts.