Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[SSDD]

Takes physics class.

Pretends he understands more than his teachers. Or his teacher's teachers.

Classic Dunning Kruger.

This may come as a surprise to you, but much of the physics used to explain the so called greenhouse effect are not taught in classical physics courses...One must take physics for the soft sciences to be taught back radiation.

Not surprised, however, that you ignored the Dunning Kruger reference.

Not surprised that you failed to read the response to your reference that was posted.

 

[SSDD]

What we are talking about here is an actual gravito-thermal effect as described by Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzman, Feynman, Hemboltz, et all, not a hypothetical radiative greenhouse effect as described by Arrhenius, the IPCC and modern climate science.

I have never heard of the gravito-thermal effect. A web search largely shows a bunch of blogs.

One summary says that,

“Loschmidt [in 1870's] claimed that the equilibrium temperature of a gas column subject to gravity should be lower at the top of the column and higher at its base.”​

However Feynman says,

“Let us begin with an example: the distribution of the molecules in an atmosphere like our own, but without the winds and other kinds of disturbance. Suppose that we have a column of gas extending to a great height, and at thermal equilibrium—unlike our atmosphere, which as we know gets colder as we go up. We could remark that if the temperature differed at different heights, we could demonstrate lack of equilibrium. So, ultimately, of course, the temperature becomes the same at all heights in a gravitational field.“​

They disagree with each other on temperature, but both do require equilibrium conditions. However the atmosphere is hardly in equilibrium with the sun pumping energy in, etc. So I don't see how any of this is relevant to atmospheric physics.

What is your take on this?

They are saying the same thing....Loschmidt rightly says that there will be a variance in temperature from the top to the bottom of the column....Feynman acknowledges that the chaotic nature of the atmosphere there will be a variance from the top to the bottom of the column. Repeatable, experimental work in the lab has confirmed a variance in temperature from the top to the bottom of the column.

 

[SSDD]

That's right -- all that energy from the sun?? Doesn't matter if or how IT balances --- because it's all gravito-thermal..

We are talking about the movement of energy from the surface of the earth to space...are you arguing that gravity, and the weight of the atmosphere does not "crowd" molecules closer together the deeper you go in the atmosphere....resulting in energy being more likely to be convected out of the atmosphere and rendering radiation to the status of a very minor bit player till the energy is exiting the atmosphere?

This physicist you found is playing loose and fast with some factoids. ..

That physicist is simply stating fact...phyisicists promoting the AGW hoax are the ones playing fast and loose with factoids....making claims that can not be observed, measured, or tested....making claims of physical reactions that, in reality, only exist in computer models....making claims that observation flatly prove wrong.

You seem to have acknowledged that energy is more likely to be convected to the upper atmosphere and still you are arguing for a radiative greenhouse effect.

By the way, I seriously doubt that energy from a CO2 molecule could be absorbed by another CO2 molecule due to its very narrow absorption bands....when energy is absorbed by a CO2 molecule it becomes excited...achieving that excited state requires some energy...therefore the energy that is transferred, either by collision with another molecule or a "photon" must be released at a slightly lower frequency than at which it was absorbed...because the absorption bands of CO2 are so narrow, another CO2 molecule would not be able to absorb that energy released at a lower frequency...and if, as you say it is not necessarily transferred in one collision, each successive collision would lower the frequency even further from the absorption frequency of other CO2 molecules.

Like it or not....CO2 is not a factor in global temperature beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere. There is no radiative greenhouse effect. If there were, there wold necessarily be a tropospheric hot spot...which simply does not exist.

 

[SSDD]

What we are talking about here is an actual gravito-thermal effect as described by Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzman, Feynman, Hemboltz, et all, not a hypothetical radiative greenhouse effect as described by Arrhenius, the IPCC and modern climate science.

I have never heard of the gravito-thermal effect. A web search largely shows a bunch of blogs.

One summary says that,

“Loschmidt [in 1870's] claimed that the equilibrium temperature of a gas column subject to gravity should be lower at the top of the column and higher at its base.”​

However Feynman says,

“Let us begin with an example: the distribution of the molecules in an atmosphere like our own, but without the winds and other kinds of disturbance. Suppose that we have a column of gas extending to a great height, and at thermal equilibrium—unlike our atmosphere, which as we know gets colder as we go up. We could remark that if the temperature differed at different heights, we could demonstrate lack of equilibrium. So, ultimately, of course, the temperature becomes the same at all heights in a gravitational field.“​

They disagree with each other on temperature, but both do require equilibrium conditions. However the atmosphere is hardly in equilibrium with the sun pumping energy in, etc. So I don't see how any of this is relevant to atmospheric physics.

What is your take on this?

They are saying the same thing....Loschmidt rightly says that there will be a variance in temperature from the top to the bottom of the column....Feynman acknowledges that the chaotic nature of the atmosphere there will be a variance from the top to the bottom of the column. Repeatable, experimental work in the lab by Graeff has confirmed a variance in temperature from the top to the bottom of the column.

 

[Crick]

.resulting in energy being more likely to be convected out of the atmosphere and rendering radiation to the status of a very minor bit player till the energy is exiting the atmosphere?

Energy can only exit from the top. To get there, it has to pass through a hundred miles of atmosphere in which density drops continuously and thus radiative transfer becomes more and more predominant. And you think this REFUTES the greenhouse effect?

 

[SSDD]

.resulting in energy being more likely to be convected out of the atmosphere and rendering radiation to the status of a very minor bit player till the energy is exiting the atmosphere?

Energy can only exit from the top. To get there, it has to pass through a hundred miles of atmosphere in which density drops continuously and thus radiative transfer becomes more and more predominant. And you think this REFUTES the greenhouse effect?

The greenhouse effect is all about what happens from the surface to the top of the troposphere...if radiation is a very minor bit player in the troposphere, then a radiative greenhouse effect does not exist....if it did, then there would necessarily be a tropospheric hot spot.

If radiation is not the primary driver in the troposphere, then a radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis is rendered falsified.

 

[Wuwei]

They are saying the same thing....Loschmidt rightly says that there will be a variance in temperature from the top to the bottom of the column....Feynman acknowledges that the chaotic nature of the atmosphere there will be a variance from the top to the bottom of the column. Repeatable, experimental work in the lab has confirmed a variance in temperature from the top to the bottom of the column.

I don't understand what you are getting at. The theoretical work of those two are for equilibrium conditions - i.e. no external work nor energy input and enough time for the state to stabilize. But the atmosphere is far from stable, it has external energy input. How can the concepts of those two have any bearing on the real world atmosphere.

 

[Wuwei]

The greenhouse effect is all about what happens from the surface to the top of the troposphere...if radiation is a very minor bit player in the troposphere, then a radiative greenhouse effect does not exist....if it did, then there would necessarily be a tropospheric hot spot.

If radiation is not the primary driver in the troposphere, then a radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis is rendered falsified.

Again I don't understand what you are getting at. I would say that if radiation is a very minor bit player, then a radiative greenhouse effect does exist, but it is a minor effect and would have negligible influence on the hot spot. That is not a reason to say the greenhouse effect does not exist at all.

 

[SSDD]

The greenhouse effect is all about what happens from the surface to the top of the troposphere...if radiation is a very minor bit player in the troposphere, then a radiative greenhouse effect does not exist....if it did, then there would necessarily be a tropospheric hot spot.

If radiation is not the primary driver in the troposphere, then a radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis is rendered falsified.

Again I don't understand what you are getting at. I would say that if radiation is a very minor bit player, then a radiative greenhouse effect does exist, but it is a minor effect and would have negligible influence on the hot spot. That is not a reason to say the greenhouse effect does not exist at all.

Climate science claims a radiative greenhouse effect....clearly radiation is not the main force at work moving energy from the surface to beyond the troposphere...therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect...there is an atmospheric thermal effect, but CO2 is irrelevant to it.

 

[Wuwei]

Climate science claims a radiative greenhouse effect....clearly radiation is not the main force at work moving energy from the surface to beyond the troposphere...therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect...there is an atmospheric thermal effect, but CO2 is irrelevant to it.

I understand that most skeptics believe that the radiative greenhouse effect is real, but a very minor forcing. Do I understand you to also say the same thing, that the CO2 radiative greenhouse effect is actually real but minimal? How does this relate to the gravito-thermo effect that you mentioned earlier? It seems that was abandon in this follow-on discussion.

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate science claims a radiative greenhouse effect....clearly radiation is not the main force at work moving energy from the surface to beyond the troposphere...therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect...there is an atmospheric thermal effect, but CO2 is irrelevant to it.

I understand that most skeptics believe that the radiative greenhouse effect is real, but a very minor forcing. Do I understand you to also say the same thing, that the CO2 radiative greenhouse effect is actually real but minimal? How does this relate to the gravito-thermo effect that you mentioned earlier? It seems that was abandon in this follow-on discussion.

Very accurate statement on "skeptic" view with the caveat that Man-Made CO2 emissions have a minimal effect on GreenHouse warming. Certainly water vapor is a DOMINANT player. And the actual power of CO2 to warm the planet has been given powers above and beyond what Physics says a doubling of the gas alone can do.. Because of the theoretical "multipliers" and "accelerations" that are the CRUX of the GW theory..

 

[threegoofs]

Climate science claims a radiative greenhouse effect....clearly radiation is not the main force at work moving energy from the surface to beyond the troposphere...therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect...there is an atmospheric thermal effect, but CO2 is irrelevant to it.

I understand that most skeptics believe that the radiative greenhouse effect is real, but a very minor forcing. Do I understand you to also say the same thing, that the CO2 radiative greenhouse effect is actually real but minimal? How does this relate to the gravito-thermo effect that you mentioned earlier? It seems that was abandon in this follow-on discussion.

Very accurate statement on "skeptic" view with the caveat that Man-Made CO2 emissions have a minimal effect on GreenHouse warming. Certainly water vapor is a DOMINANT player. And the actual power of CO2 to warm the planet has been given powers above and beyond what Physics says a doubling of the gas alone can do.. Because of the theoretical "multipliers" and "accelerations" that are the CRUX of the GW theory..

Except the physicists who taught you all this stuff say there is no question AGW is real and will become a major problem in the future.

Climate Change Statement Review

 

[Wuwei]

Very accurate statement on "skeptic" view with the caveat that Man-Made CO2 emissions have a minimal effect on GreenHouse warming. Certainly water vapor is a DOMINANT player. And the actual power of CO2 to warm the planet has been given powers above and beyond what Physics says a doubling of the gas alone can do.. Because of the theoretical "multipliers" and "accelerations" that are the CRUX of the GW theory..

Yes, I understand that "skeptic" view, and it's a very simple argument. But what puzzles me is why there are skeptics who torture the laws of physics to try to prove their point. There are a whole slew of them who pontificate in blogs, etc. I see no need for them to do that. So I think it is an obsessive game with them to argue amateur physics.

I don't take any strong stance on AGW. Neither the warmers, nor deniers have made a strong point.

There are some problems that I have not seen discussed enough:
Yes water vapor is predominant, but CO2 and CH4 absorb IR in some gaps in the H2O spectrum. This will increase energy entrapment and cause warming. Those two GHG's exist only as gasses (except semisolid CH4 that occurs in the depths of cold water.) However there is an endless supply of H2O which exists in three phases and is continually changing between water, vapor, and ice. That complicates the radiation dynamics because H2O has such different properties than the other two.

So, just how strong is the CO2 in GW? Are scientists on a bandwagon or are there really calculations which are robust. Most of the skeptics simply say CO2 doubling doesn't do much. What are they basing that on? If the calculations are not robust, do the skeptic scientists have better calculations? It's hard to go to the original research unless you pay several hundred dollars for journal subscriptions. If there is a solid reason to believe one way or another about AGW, I have not seen it.

 

[Wuwei]

Except the physicists who taught you all this stuff say there is no question AGW is real and will become a major problem in the future.

Climate Change Statement Review

I looked at the IPCC report a year ago until I got impatient with the huge volume of stuff. I will take a look at the APS to see what they have.

 

[threegoofs]

Except the physicists who taught you all this stuff say there is no question AGW is real and will become a major problem in the future.

Climate Change Statement Review

I looked at the IPCC report a year ago until I got impatient with the huge volume of stuff. I will take a look at the APS to see what they have.

LOL.

Yeah. Science is hard.

Imagine the effort of the people who actually wrote and edited it!

It's funny how you said it's hard to go to the original science because it's paywalled, but a whole lot of it is compiled in that long report. Not only that, but it's collected and contextual iced and reviewed for completeness and accuracy by the very scientists who participated in the research.

So the IPCC does give one a solid reason to believe AGW is a serious issue. You say you haven't seen a reason....and you also state you couldn't read the IPCC because of the volume of material.

I think we can conclude you haven't seen the reason because you didn't bother to read it!

 

[jc456]

Very accurate statement on "skeptic" view with the caveat that Man-Made CO2 emissions have a minimal effect on GreenHouse warming. Certainly water vapor is a DOMINANT player. And the actual power of CO2 to warm the planet has been given powers above and beyond what Physics says a doubling of the gas alone can do.. Because of the theoretical "multipliers" and "accelerations" that are the CRUX of the GW theory..

Yes, I understand that "skeptic" view, and it's a very simple argument. But what puzzles me is why there are skeptics who torture the laws of physics to try to prove their point. There are a whole slew of them who pontificate in blogs, etc. I see no need for them to do that. So I think it is an obsessive game with them to argue amateur physics.

I don't take any strong stance on AGW. Neither the warmers, nor deniers have made a strong point.

There are some problems that I have not seen discussed enough:
Yes water vapor is predominant, but CO2 and CH4 absorb IR in some gaps in the H2O spectrum. This will increase energy entrapment and cause warming. Those two GHG's exist only as gasses (except semisolid CH4 that occurs in the depths of cold water.) However there is an endless supply of H2O which exists in three phases and is continually changing between water, vapor, and ice. That complicates the radiation dynamics because H2O has such different properties than the other two.

So, just how strong is the CO2 in GW? Are scientists on a bandwagon or are there really calculations which are robust. Most of the skeptics simply say CO2 doubling doesn't do much. What are they basing that on? If the calculations are not robust, do the skeptic scientists have better calculations? It's hard to go to the original research unless you pay several hundred dollars for journal subscriptions. If there is a solid reason to believe one way or another about AGW, I have not seen it.

It's very simple it's never been proven

 

[Billy_Bob]

Except the physicists who taught you all this stuff say there is no question AGW is real and will become a major problem in the future.

Climate Change Statement Review

I looked at the IPCC report a year ago until I got impatient with the huge volume of stuff. I will take a look at the APS to see what they have.

LOL.

Yeah. Science is hard.

Imagine the effort of the people who actually wrote and edited it!

It's funny how you said it's hard to go to the original science because it's paywalled, but a whole lot of it is compiled in that long report. Not only that, but it's collected and contextual iced and reviewed for completeness and accuracy by the very scientists who participated in the research.

So the IPCC does give one a solid reason to believe AGW is a serious issue. You say you haven't seen a reason....and you also state you couldn't read the IPCC because of the volume of material.

I think we can conclude you haven't seen the reason because you didn't bother to read it!

WHEN 66% OF ALL DATA IS MANUFACTURED.....There really isn't much left that is empirical evidence or proof of your hottest ever line of crap...

Approximately 66% of global surface temperature data consists of estimated values

The adjustments are somewhat controversial, because they take presumably raw and accurate data, run it through one or more mathematical models, and produce an estimate of what the temperature might have been given a set of conditions. For example, the time of observation adjustment (TOB) takes a raw data point at, say 7 AM, and produces an estimate of what the temperature might have been at midnight. The skill of that model is nearly impossible to determine on a monthly basis, but it is unlikely to be consistently producing a result that is accurate to the 1/100th degree that is stored in the record.

When one actually researches the data you find things that should never be allowed to happen in science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Worse still is the BEST pile of crap.. if we simply take the unadjusted numbers the lie is easily exposed... The upwards adjustments to present day and the downward adjustments to the past... The model they use to make adjustments and make up data is crap..

 

[Wuwei]

LOL.

Yeah. Science is hard.

Imagine the effort of the people who actually wrote and edited it!

It's funny how you said it's hard to go to the original science because it's paywalled, but a whole lot of it is compiled in that long report. Not only that, but it's collected and contextual iced and reviewed for completeness and accuracy by the very scientists who participated in the research.

So the IPCC does give one a solid reason to believe AGW is a serious issue. You say you haven't seen a reason....and you also state you couldn't read the IPCC because of the volume of material.

I think we can conclude you haven't seen the reason because you didn't bother to read it!

If you are going to be so snippy, I will lump you in with the usual idiots on this board who think scoffing is the way to make a point.

A lot of the IPCC report references articles that are $20 a pop. I mostly saw summaries and generalities of the articles references in that report. Trenbreth's famous diagram shows an energy balance with a 0.9 watts/m^2 excess hitting the earth. You simply can't subtract large numbers with large error bars and rely on a small residual. So where did he get that number? Simply from the current rate of GW? How do they handle the issues that I outlined in post 513 above.

There are 5 full reports in the Fifth Assessment Report. I'm not interested in the summary reports. Since you read the IPCC report let me know, if you remember, where you found the physics background behind the energy budget. I am trying to download Working group II Full Report but is taking 10 minutes so far. Their server might be down.

 

[Old Rocks]

With an interest in Geology, I come at the argument from a different standpoint. That of present changes in drought patterns, glaciers and ice caps, and effects on permafrost. That of the past paleoclimatic record. Such as a differance of 20 ppm of CO2 between the interglacial and the last interglacial created about a 20 foot increase in sea level then. Here are some resources;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That is an American Institute of Physics site.

USGS: Science Topics: effects of climate change

Investigating Climate Change of Western North America - USGS Fact Sheet

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20130096

The Weekend Wonk: Richard Alley on Climate History and CO2