AGW: atmospheric physics

[flacaltenn]

Heat differentials are the thermal moving potential. Temperature is an effect that depends on time-rate of transfers or ENERGY. Coffee stays hotter LONGER in a thermos. Any doubters?

Don't forget the time variable...

Slower cooling does not equal warming. That thermos will never make the coffee warmer than it was when it was poured in.

BTW:: You're totally wrong about the electronics example when you say the devices are not generating enough heat to raise their own temperature. The temp at the little spot of silicon inside the package is typically 20 to 40degC ABOVE the ambient.. That's the Junction temperature and all that matters to the health and lifetime of the chip.. Throw a blanket over the heatsink and package and that TEMP at the JUNCTION will go up dramatically -- just from removing AIR FLOW to the device. Measuring anything like that at the heatsink or the package only tells you how good the thermal resistance of the materials are..

But let's get back to the simpler problem with the thermos. Of course the coffee will not get hotter because it lacks an incoming supply of energy. But that's not the GreenHouse effect that DOES (despite your weak denial) operate 24 hours a day.

If I had two thermoses (or thermi?) and in one I install just a puny 1 watt heater that operated every hour that the sun is up, say 10 hours -- then if the rate of 1W X 10 hours or 10Whrs over a 24 hr period (equally a daily averaged rate of 0.42WHrs) -- was GREATER than the thermal loss due to the thermos, that coffee would eventually boil. And the other thermos would simply lose heat energy due to convection, and radiation. If 0.42WHrs was LESS than the loss rate due to the thermal isolation to the air, then the coffee eventually assumes room temp. Simple balancing act..

And that's where you're going off the rails. Because the GreenHouse effect talks about blackbody radiation (IR) and BY DEFINITION -- a blackbody earth has no heat pumping going on. It's very definition is that a blackbody is in thermal equilibrium. (a mathematical convienience for analysis).. ((Greenhouse theory also relies on thermodynamics for atmospheric transmission of heat energy, but that's another story))

But NO blackbody is really "in equilibrium".. AND they all have a loss rate and a gain rate of thermal energy. It is just a RESERVOIR of heat energy that determines how it radiates.

The earth is pumped daily in a "pulse width modulated" fashion by the sun (and secondarily ongoiing geothermal and hydrodynamic processes). So if you screw with the LOSS RATE --- the body temperature WILL increase.

IN FACT -- we KNOW that we are looking to explain the equivalent of about 3W/M2 of heat energy that would cause the 1degC rise for the past century or so.. Fact is --- It doesn't matter whether that 3W/m2 of energy is accounted for by an increase of incoming energy or a decrease in the loss rate of thermal energy. It has the same effect on surface temperature.

((Extra credit problem -- Is that touted figure of 3W/M2 required ALL DAY? Or is it normalized to the duty cycle of solar heating? Because 3W/M2 is NOT an energy variable, it's a power variable. And it NEEDS to have a time component attached to it to make an energy budget.. Are ya listening Trenberth??? ))

EXTRA EXTRA CREDIT --- Measuring the blanket temperature is no better than measuring your oven door to see how hot the oven is. Depending on the thermal resistance properties of that insulating material to tell you whether the heating pad is heating up further is futile. Now to your credit -- the Earths troposphere is an even more complicated analysis of what temp tells you about the heat balance. WHERE you measure and HOW you measure will provide some clues, but the heat balance is only tallied when ALL the components are analyzed..

 

[SSDD]

It's a very good thing that SSDD threw out the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because he wasn't using it anyway.

'

Do describe for us anything I have said that violates the second law of physics...or any law of physics for that matter.

You know, it doesn't surprise me that posters here do not understand laws of physics. That seems natural enough.

It is obvious that you don't if you belive I have said anything that violates any law of physics.

SSDD honestly believes - or at least pretends to - that he has re-written the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Describe how you believe I have rewritten the second law. To the best of my knowledge, the second law says that it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without having done some work to accomplish the task. It states that energy will not spontaneously flow from a low temperature object to a high temperature object.

That being the case, what have I said that violates that law?

I am actually going to avoid pointing out the error in your thinking. I imagine post people have spotted it already, and I have enjoyed watching yoursel digging the hole deeper and deeper!

Because there is no error. You obviously don't know enough about the subject to even begin to speak and are at least smart enough to know that you would get caught if you tried. Much like your refusal to produce non existent evidence of a greenhouse effect or that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global warming. When you can't do a thing, you pretend that you can and claim that you just don't want to as if no one can see right through that dodge.

Why is the surface temperature of the earth not 0?[/B]

0 F, 0 C, or 0 K? Don't you even know how to ask a question?

And before you ask such a stupid question again, ask yourself why the moon, with no atmosphere at all is not at 0 degrees K. For that matter you might ask yourself why the moon is so hot on its daylight side with no atmosphere as compared to the balmy temperature of earth with an atmosphee and wonder if the atmosphere is what keeps us cool rather than burning to a crisp.

 

[IanC]

??? "give it time to reach whatever setting you put it on"??? did you check to see how much power it was drawing?

Didn't have the equipment to do that...We turned the thing to medium and it went up to about 103.4 degrees and held that temperature for about 30 minutes...I figured that was as warm as it was going to get. It never got over 103.4 with all the blankets piled on top of it. The blankets aren't a heat source so they couldn't possibly warm it up.

throw a blanket over any powered up piece of electronics and it will heat up.

Like I told flacalten...the operating temperature of most electronics is lower than the heat it is capable of generating. Ergo all the heat sinks. Take away the heat sinks and let it heat up to the actual temperature it is capable of reaching and then throw a blanket over it and it won't warm further.... or make the electronics large enough so that they have enough surface area so that the temperatue they are capable of producing is less than their maximum operating temperature and again, you can throw all the blankets over them you like and they won't get warmer.

the energy coming from the Sun is very stable. complaining that atmospheric equilibrium effects that are powered by the Sun are then interefering with incoming radiation is somewhat dishonest when you refuse to allow me to point out atmospheric equilibrium effects are interfering with outgoing radiation.

So called GHG's are a transport mechanism for IR, not a storage mechanism. When this whole argument plays itself out and eventually it will, we are going to find that the socalled greenhose gasses act as a cooling mechanism because they transport OLR much faster than non radiative gasses. If there were no radiative gasses in the atmosphere emissivity would be lower and then we would be stuck with only convection and conduction and heat would move out more slowly.

I keep trying to figure out exactly what your position is. I agree that the original heat source would not increase in temperature as long as it can operate in a surrounding environment that is at that temp, eg pipe heating strips. your example of a heating pad, which I presume is made up of a similar type of heat source, would show very little increase because the difference in temps is small. you left the pad on for 30 minutes to find the max temp, but how long did you leave it under the blankets? how long would it take to charge the heat sink and come to equilibrium?

I tried to make a reasonable example out of that planet alone in space with a uranium core that heated the planet. the core itself will stay the same temp. but I asked you what the difference would be if the rest of the planet was made of 1. metal or 2. asbestos. both would have the same surface temp but the metal planet would be much less of a heat sink and the temp gradient from core to surface would be lower at every level.

you are taking an example where Tmax is very close to Toperating, and then assuming that other systems are similar. electronics stop working if they cannot shed the heat they produce. the earth's surface would be much higher without an atmosphere when the sun is shining. even with an atmosphere the earth's surface does not charge its heat sinks and achieve max temp. the planet is in a complicated set of equilibriums that keep its surface temp far lower than the maximum possible. and there is no special 'position' held by the surface but it is important to us because we live there. the main equation is input in (solar) equals output out, to a very close degree. everything in between is just equilibriums that can change.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Still waiting for you to answer the question.

Why is the temperature of the earth not 0?*


*The scale is not imporant here, because this is a theoretical discussion. Choose +10F if you wish.

But feel free to address Ian and Flacalternn's excellent posts first - I can wait.

 

[SSDD]

BTW:: You're totally wrong about the electronics example when you say the devices are not generating enough heat to raise their own temperature.

That isn't what I said. I said that the maximum operating temperature of the chip, or whatever is lower than the temperature the device will reach if not cooled via heat sinks or moving air, or liquid.

Say the operating temperature of the processor in my computer is 120 degrees. ( I don't know what the actual maximum operating temperature of the chip is) If it goes above that temperature, it ceases working as a processor. If it didn't have the heat sink, it would certainly rise to a temperature above whatever the maximum operating temperature is. If you let it reach the maximum temperature it can reach based on the amount of energy it is receiving, (even though it will no longer work as a processor) and then cover it, it won't get any warmer.

I understand that if you cover the heat sinks in your electronics they will warm up and stop working but the heat sinks are only there to prevent them from warming up to the temperature they are capable of heating up to if the heat sinks weren't there. If you made the electronics large enough so that their surface area didn't require heat sinks to keep them cooler than they were capable of getting, then you could cover them as you like and they wouldn't warm up as the would not need to be kept cooler than the temperature they were capable of reaching based on the amount of energy coming into them. The drawback of doing that is that electronics would have to be huge to have that much surface area.

The temp at the little spot of silicon inside the package is typically 20 to 40degC ABOVE the ambient.. That's the Junction temperature and all that matters to the health and lifetime of the chip.. Throw a blanket over the heatsink and package and that TEMP at the JUNCTION will go up dramatically -- just from removing AIR FLOW to the device. Measuring anything like that at the heatsink or the package only tells you how good the thermal resistance of the materials are..

Right, but that is because the amount of energy coming into that chip is enough to actually raise its temperature far above 20 to 40 above ambient...the heat sinks are to keep it at a temperature where it can operate. If you let it heat up to the temperature it could reach without the heat sinks it would stop operating as a chip, but at that point, you couldn't make it warmer by covering it up with a blanket. It can't get any warmer than the energy coming in from its only power source will make it. You can't reflect its own energy back to it and make it warmer.

But that's not the GreenHouse effect that DOES (despite your weak denial) operate 24 hours a day.

I subscribe to an atmospheric thermal effect as described by N&Z which is much greater than the claimed greenhouse effect but does not really care what the composition of the atmosphere is. The temperature of the earth can be predicted based on incoming solar energy and the ideal gas laws...a greenhouse effect is not needed.

I realy don't have time for the rest...got to get back to work.

 

[IanC]

SSDD -

Still waiting for you to answer the question.

Why is the temperature of the earth not 0?*


*The scale is not imporant here, because this is a theoretical discussion. Choose +10F if you wish.

even without the sun the earth couldnt be 0K because the universe has a background temp from the big bang.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW:: You're totally wrong about the electronics example when you say the devices are not generating enough heat to raise their own temperature.

That isn't what I said. I said that the maximum operating temperature of the chip, or whatever is lower than the temperature the device will reach if not cooled via heat sinks or moving air, or liquid.

Say the operating temperature of the processor in my computer is 120 degrees. ( I don't know what the actual maximum operating temperature of the chip is) If it goes above that temperature, it ceases working as a processor. If it didn't have the heat sink, it would certainly rise to a temperature above whatever the maximum operating temperature is. If you let it reach the maximum temperature it can reach based on the amount of energy it is receiving, (even though it will no longer work as a processor) and then cover it, it won't get any warmer.

I understand that if you cover the heat sinks in your electronics they will warm up and stop working but the heat sinks are only there to prevent them from warming up to the temperature they are capable of heating up to if the heat sinks weren't there. If you made the electronics large enough so that their surface area didn't require heat sinks to keep them cooler than they were capable of getting, then you could cover them as you like and they wouldn't warm up as the would not need to be kept cooler than the temperature they were capable of reaching based on the amount of energy coming into them. The drawback of doing that is that electronics would have to be huge to have that much surface area.

The temp at the little spot of silicon inside the package is typically 20 to 40degC ABOVE the ambient.. That's the Junction temperature and all that matters to the health and lifetime of the chip.. Throw a blanket over the heatsink and package and that TEMP at the JUNCTION will go up dramatically -- just from removing AIR FLOW to the device. Measuring anything like that at the heatsink or the package only tells you how good the thermal resistance of the materials are..

Right, but that is because the amount of energy coming into that chip is enough to actually raise its temperature far above 20 to 40 above ambient...the heat sinks are to keep it at a temperature where it can operate. If you let it heat up to the temperature it could reach without the heat sinks it would stop operating as a chip, but at that point, you couldn't make it warmer by covering it up with a blanket. It can't get any warmer than the energy coming in from its only power source will make it. You can't reflect its own energy back to it and make it warmer.

But that's not the GreenHouse effect that DOES (despite your weak denial) operate 24 hours a day.

I subscribe to an atmospheric thermal effect as described by N&Z which is much greater than the claimed greenhouse effect but does not really care what the composition of the atmosphere is. The temperature of the earth can be predicted based on incoming solar energy and the ideal gas laws...a greenhouse effect is not needed.

I realy don't have time for the rest...got to get back to work.

Youre full of the silly hope that those devices won't keep getting hotter because "they stop operating as a processor".. Well -- that's what UL is for.. For folks like you who depend on the hope fairy to prevent another Chicago fire.

As a designer I CAN'T depend on the device to stop working. It isn't a fuse.. And physics tells me it's temperature just might increase to the point of boiling away the package or lighting up the circuit board.. That's WHY these materials are fire and temperature rated.

So --- clouds at nighttime in the desert do not make the NIGHT warmer at the surface? That's news to the people of Nogales, I reckon... Try substituting your N&Z "ideal gasses" for clouds and see how chilly your night in the desert turns out to be..

 

[mamooth]

I have a heated dog bed, that consists of a big cushion with a slot in it. A plate-like heating element slides into the slot, and slides out again so you can wash the cushion more easily.

If the heating element is outside the cushion, I touch it and it feels mildly warm. I have no trouble keeping my finger on it.

If I slide the heating element inside the cushion and wait a hour, and then reach in the slot and touch it, I can't keep my finger on it. It's gotten much hotter.

Hence, I easily disprove SSDD's whackaloon claim that an insulator can't raise the temperature of a heat-creating object.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I have a heated dog bed, that consists of a big cushion with a slot in it. A plate-like heating element slides into the slot, and slides out again so you can wash the cushion more easily.

If the heating element is outside the cushion, I touch it and it feels mildly warm. I have no trouble keeping my finger on it.

If I slide the heating element inside the cushion and wait a hour, and then reach in the slot and touch it, I can't keep my finger on it. It's gotten much hotter.

Hence, I easily disprove SSDD's whackaloon claim that an insulator can't raise the temperature of a heat-creating object.

 

[numan]

'
This thread has been a real eye-opener for me.

Until I read it, I had no idea how whacked-out the global-heating deniers can get. As Flacaltenn pointed out, they have been reduced to to the state of mental inanity of denying that clouds at night make the desert warmer!!

These are obviously the same sort of people who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they were afraid of what they might see!!
.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

'
This thread has been a real eye-opener for me.

Until I read it, I had no idea how whacked-out the global-heating deniers can get. As Flacaltenn pointed out, they have been reduced to to the state of mental inanity of denying that clouds at night make the desert warmer!!

These are obviously the same sort of people who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they were afraid of what they might see!!
.

^ noman doesn't even grasp the humor inherent in his ridiculous position that clouds make the desert warmer at night.



Seriously, that poor delusional ignorant pathetic assclown is so spectacularly ill-informed that he cannot distinguish between a blanket slowing heat loss and a blanket "adding" heat.



The AGW Faithers don't see how silly they are.

;


,


:


.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Still waiting for you to answer the question.

Why is the temperature of the earth not 0?*


*The scale is not imporant here, because this is a theoretical discussion. Choose +10F if you wish.

even without the sun the earth couldnt be 0K because the universe has a background temp from the big bang.

Scale doesn't matter? Get that?

Even the dark side of the moon isn't 0 K Hell, it is over 100 K there.

 

[SSDD]

Youre full of the silly hope that those devices won't keep getting hotter because "they stop operating as a processor".. Well -- that's what UL is for.. For folks like you who depend on the hope fairy to prevent another Chicago fire.

Whether they work as processors is irrelavent and you are more than smart enough to know that isn't what I am saying. I don't know how much simpler I can make it and I don't know why because you are a bright fellow.

The processor, or whatever will heat up to the maximum temperature it can reach according to how much energy it has coming in. Once that temperature is reached, that is it. It won't get hotter unless you provide it more energy and putting a blanket over it does not provide more energy.

So --- clouds at nighttime in the desert do not make the NIGHT warmer at the surface? That's news to the people of Nogales, I reckon... Try substituting your N&Z "ideal gasses" for clouds and see how chilly your night in the desert turns out to be..

They don't really make it warmer...they just slow the rate of cooling. Night time in the desert isn't warmer than day time. Unlike CO2, water vapor can actually capture and store heat but even with that, the temperature is still decreasing. A clear sky with 100% CO2 if you could somehow manage that would result in the same temperature as a clear sky of regular air. Hell, 100% CO2 might result in a lower ambient temperature because radiation would move heat away from the surface far faster than convection and conduction.

And are you really arguing that the temperature at the bottom of a column of air is not greater than at the top of that column?

 

[SSDD]

I have a heated dog bed, that consists of a big cushion with a slot in it. A plate-like heating element slides into the slot, and slides out again so you can wash the cushion more easily.

If the heating element is outside the cushion, I touch it and it feels mildly warm. I have no trouble keeping my finger on it.

If I slide the heating element inside the cushion and wait a hour, and then reach in the slot and touch it, I can't keep my finger on it. It's gotten much hotter.

Hence, I easily disprove SSDD's whackaloon claim that an insulator can't raise the temperature of a heat-creating object.

Use a thermometer instead of your finger. If you claim that it gets warmer inside the cushion than it does outside, you are a bald faced liar.

 

[SSDD]

'
This thread has been a real eye-opener for me.

Until I read it, I had no idea how whacked-out the global-heating deniers can get. As Flacaltenn pointed out, they have been reduced to to the state of mental inanity of denying that clouds at night make the desert warmer!!

No one has denied any such thing. Clouds certainly slow down cooling, but they don't make the desert warmer. Water vapor, unlike CO2 can absorb and actually store energy but even with that capacity, it doesn't make the night time desert warmer than the daytime desert...the clouds just cause the desert to cool slower...and no matter how you slice it, slower cooling is still cooling...not warming. If you can't follow the discussion, then why comment? The clear sky nighttime temperature over the desert vs the clear sky temperature over a coastal area along the same lattitude and elevation should be enough to convince you that CO2 is not the driving factor....the coastal area with a clear sky at night will be much warmer than the desert area with a clear sky at night....both have the same amount of CO2 in the air...water vapor is the difference and it is because water has the capacity to actually capture energy whereas CO2 simply absorbs and then immediately emits it. CO2 can't hold on to any of it.

 

[polarbear]

Reactors as in plural. Name one "you used to run".
Then tell me which type of fuel rods you "used to use" and who your fuel rod supplier "used to be"?
What was the coating and the unit weight?
What`s the name of the systems control software that you "used to use"?

Good luck getting answers to those questions..mamooth has to be one of the dullest knives in the drawer here.

The really funny thing is that siagon just applauded her idiotic statement.

The only way it would get hotter is if you feed it more heat than it has at the equilibrium.

Well I`ll go first then and lay down some of my cards:

In the other thread where I caught the cat in the hat with the paws in the cookie jar :
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/286367-wonder-where-chris-is-3.html#post7041019

o when I posted a chart that was titled "Temperature mean forecast departure", I was really trying to fool people into thinking it was temperature and not temperature differential. Silly me, assuming people would read the title.

Apparently, I am required to state "I know the chart says temperature differential, and that it should also be obvious that red on Greenland does not mean Greenland is hotter than the USA, but since PolarBear can't grasp such simple concepts, let me emphasize that it's a temperature differential chart and not a temperature chart."

And if I don't say that, I'm a liar.

By the way, are you drinking heavily these days? That would explain a lot.

No you posted:

Note the colder-than-normal USA and hotter-than-normal arctic. They're cancelling their ski races in Greenland because the snow has all melted.

And hoped nobody would notice the fine print on top of the picture and wanted to make sure nobody would read the blog post where you picked it from....that`s why you did not want to post the link...in a lame effort to corroborate yet another pack of lies you keep posting
The stuff that you made up:
"They're cancelling their ski races in Greenland because the snow has all melted
(it`s still -25C and colder)
and the ...allowing Arctic air to blow south, and for warm air to come north to replace it."

Was not forecast by the blogger and what YOU MADE UP ALL BY YOURSELF failed to happen.
He also revised his "anomalies" down to +6.4 for almost the entire region.

Fuck I pity the people who have to do business with you .
You are like these bitches who ram a parked car and tell their auto insurance agent you got rammed and the other driver ran away.
Are you related to Jodi Arias?

I not only became a drunkard but now I`m also part of a "cult conspiracy" to discredit a blogger, a Met office and siamese cats.
They don`t give people with a drinking problem a security clearance.
Or hand them the keys to an Impala linear accelerator which costs $ 360/hour to run it.

Is that thing a he or a she or some sort of sex change freak where the hormones are totally imbalanced?

 

[flacaltenn]

Youre full of the silly hope that those devices won't keep getting hotter because "they stop operating as a processor".. Well -- that's what UL is for.. For folks like you who depend on the hope fairy to prevent another Chicago fire.

Whether they work as processors is irrelavent and you are more than smart enough to know that isn't what I am saying. I don't know how much simpler I can make it and I don't know why because you are a bright fellow.

The processor, or whatever will heat up to the maximum temperature it can reach according to how much energy it has coming in. Once that temperature is reached, that is it. It won't get hotter unless you provide it more energy and putting a blanket over it does not provide more energy.

So --- clouds at nighttime in the desert do not make the NIGHT warmer at the surface? That's news to the people of Nogales, I reckon... Try substituting your N&Z "ideal gasses" for clouds and see how chilly your night in the desert turns out to be..

They don't really make it warmer...they just slow the rate of cooling. Night time in the desert isn't warmer than day time. Unlike CO2, water vapor can actually capture and store heat but even with that, the temperature is still decreasing. A clear sky with 100% CO2 if you could somehow manage that would result in the same temperature as a clear sky of regular air. Hell, 100% CO2 might result in a lower ambient temperature because radiation would move heat away from the surface far faster than convection and conduction.

And are you really arguing that the temperature at the bottom of a column of air is not greater than at the top of that column?

Hell man.. Get a grip.. It's not as complicated as you're making it out to be. The TIME element is really important because temperature depends on energy not power. So if you slow the cooling rate at night when no energy is being added with clouds, the temperature will be HIGHER at morning than it otherwise would be at the rocks on the surface. Therefore when you fire up the furnace for the next day -- you START with a larger reservoir of HEAT. (To paraphrase James Carville --- It's the INTEGRAL stupid)

You keep that up for a week and the surface temp should continue to rise.. Even if (and especially) the clouds get switched off in the daytime when the sun gets switched on.

Put six frogs into a pot of water. Let it reach thermal equilibrium. Switch on just 2 watts of constant power for 10 hours a day.

1) If the outflow of heat energy (cooling rate) from this heat process is GREATER than the integrated inflow from your cheesy heater --- the temp will rise (over time -- probably days) to a NEW thermal equilibrium with a pleasantly warmer environment for your frogs.

2) If the outflow of heat energy from this heat process is EQUAL to the integrated inflow from your cheesy heater --- the temp will eventually rise to the MAXIMUM temperature that can retained at equilibrium (if the water doesn't all leave as vapor in the process). You'll probably lose your frogs.

3) If the outflow of heat energy from this heat process is LESS than the integrated inflow from your cheezy heater --- the temp will continue to rise until the water boils and there's nothing but memories of your frogs in the pot.

Now if at night when the cheezy heater is off, you cover the pot to reduce the cooling rate, you hasten the demise of the frogs by shortening the time integral to reach equibrium or to raise the temp to the point where something in the thermal system changes or breaks. (like boiling off the water or melting a hole in the pot). Theoretically barring catastrophic collapse of the system or negative feedbacks -- the temp continues to rise.

What a YouTube demonstration? (Frogs are hard to come by --- but I could use kittens).



By the way Numan, Saigon et al --- the warmers have this all wrong in many of their arguments. Cheerleaders like Saigon expect to find the culprit for Global Warming has the same shape graph as the warming temperatures. This is a juvenile expectation for a complicated system like climate. As in the pulsed frog temp example above -- I can acheive any temp I want with a CONSTANT change in power input. It will appear over decades as a near linear increase in temperature -- but it will eventually either reach a new equilibrium or continue to run away thermally. SOOOOO -- what has the sun done since 1700?? It has stepped up about
1.6W/M2 in total solar irradiance. What does the temperature look like? It's climbing over time just like in Frog CASE 2 or CASE 3. Doesn't HAVE to have a matching graph. A simple Step of any magnitude in the forcing function will appear over our lifetimes to create a dynamic change in temperature.

This is where the warmers are really screwing up the dialogue.. Trust me. It's disingenuous to expect to find a reason for the warming with the same shape graph as the temperature rise. Has NO scientific justification... Not when you get into integral calculus and the presence of feedback functions..

 

[westwall]

Just so people can see what a loon saigon is. His fundamental lack of honesty is fully displayed here...


Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon
Westwall -

You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured.

It's worth being honest about that.




No, they havn't been. In 2007 the revisionists were proclaiming an ice free arctic by 2013.
WHOOPS.... You see dear silly person with this wonderful thing called the internet we can go back and print up all the stupid halfwit claims made by the revisionists....so that revisionists like you can't revise history, and the historical record, to suit you.

Must suck to be so wrong so completely....all the gosh damned time.



Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly

Professor Peter Wadhams

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."



BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

 

[polarbear]

Next thing, Saigon will tell you that he "used to run nuclear power plants" like that psychotic Siamese Cat
And that the "Saigon the Journalist in Finland" identity is just a cover because he is a nuclear physicist that defected from Iran.
Haven`t seen hide nor hair from the Poophead who called himself a "physist" and tried to explain IR absorption with frogs he popped in his microwave oven.
He`s been replaced by another dimwit who pretends to be a scientist "with open eyes"

and makes idiotic size comparisons between the earth`s atmosphere and and an egg membrane which we are going to pop with chimney exhaust he has seen from an airplane.
He got it from a blogger that explains exponential functions for dummies and makes similar size comparisons by folding a towel 36 times so it becomes a tower that reaches past the moon after "just 36 folds".
It would like to see how you can take a "folded towel" wire that is 192 200 kilometers long and about 1 Angstrom in diameter after folding the towel 35 times "folded in half" so it is 384 400 kilometers long instead of just 96 100 km.
People like that don`t have regular assholes. Their`s is a high pressure extruder nozzle that can take an enviro wacko blog and squeeze out 384 400 kilometers of continuos crap for an entire decade.
Like the Siamese cat "Chinese aerosol" earth cooling micro particulate, which line up like little mirrors that reflect only up and out while CO2 molecules line up like precision lasers aimed back at the earth cooking cities that have a better albedo than the forest around it.
These wackos took physics back to the level of phlogiston theories and prehistoric pollen, tree ring proxy thermometers.
I wonder what the "pollen count/tree ring thermometer" is showing for Canada or Greenland right now

 

[SSDD]

So if you slow the cooling rate at night when no energy is being added with clouds, the temperature will be HIGHER at morning than it otherwise would be at the rocks on the surface.

Higher than otherwise is still cooler. Slowing the rate of cooling will never equal heating.

keep that up for a week and the surface temp should continue to rise.. Even if (and especially) the clouds get switched off in the daytime when the sun gets switched on.

Keep it up for a million years and it will never get warmer than the incoming radiation from the sun can heat it.

You can't win; you can only break even.
You can only break even at absolute zero.
You can't reach absolute zero.

Put six frogs into a pot of water. Let it reach thermal equilibrium. Switch on just 2 watts of constant power for 10 hours a day.

1) If the outflow of heat energy (cooling rate) from this heat process is GREATER than the integrated inflow from your cheesy heater --- the temp will rise (over time -- probably days) to a NEW thermal equilibrium with a pleasantly warmer environment for your frogs.

2) If the outflow of heat energy from this heat process is EQUAL to the integrated inflow from your cheesy heater --- the temp will eventually rise to the MAXIMUM temperature that can retained at equilibrium (if the water doesn't all leave as vapor in the process). You'll probably lose your frogs.

3) If the outflow of heat energy from this heat process is LESS than the integrated inflow from your cheezy heater --- the temp will continue to rise until the water boils and there's nothing but memories of your frogs in the pot.

Now if at night when the cheezy heater is off, you cover the pot to reduce the cooling rate, you hasten the demise of the frogs by shortening the time integral to reach equibrium or to raise the temp to the point where something in the thermal system changes or breaks. (like boiling off the water or melting a hole in the pot). Theoretically barring catastrophic collapse of the system or negative feedbacks -- the temp continues to rise. [/quote]

You still aren't going to get that water any warmer than the cheezy heater can make it without adding energy. By the way, you didn't say what the surface area of your cheezy heater is. Your end water temperature will be quite a bit different if the radiating surface area of your cheezy 2 watt heater is 100 square inches vs 0.10 square inches.