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

[flacaltenn]

But that's the point WuWei -- to MODEL the earth as an ideal 15degC Black Body would NEVER give you an answer with acceptable tolerances to FIND that 9W/m2. Problem with an "energy" budget a la Trenberth is that it virtually ignores temporal effects of storage. Which climate science has only seemed to discovered lately. NOW there is more of a recognition that the Climate System includes some rather time constants on thermal transfer. A concept that was sickly missing from the early hysteria...

You're right about reducing the "master metric" to a Mean Annual Surface Temperature". Like ONE NUMBER is supposed to represent the sum total change in Climate. Climate science tends to make a lot of things GLOBAL -- when they should be understanding the local and regional thermal energy flow. Biggest example of reduction to absurdity is this global "climate sensitivity" number that magically multiplies the power of CO2 for the entire planet. Not only insufficient as a single number topographically -- but it ignores the different temporal time constants involved.

I'm not aware if Trenberth ever considered his model as a instrument for predicting the future. I consider it a back-of-the-envelope sort of snapshot of the current dynamics. And yes temporal response of the various elements of any theory are an integral part of understanding the long-term non-equilibrium thermodynamics of the atmosphere and it can't be done yet.

I cant' find the references now, but one approach was for satellites to measure the short wavelength radiation entering the earth and the wide band of short to long waves leaving the earth. The difference would be on a global average scale and a direct measurement that would obviate any model like Trenberth. As I understand it there was a rather large difference where a non-trivial excess was hitting the earth - more than most people expected or accepted. I didn't look for viewpoints on the veracity of that finding - if satellites were in error or what. I'm sure it's controversial. If anyone has any further info on that, I'm sure they will tell me.

I'll buy that Trenberth study as "a back of the envelope" excersize. But it's been promoted to great heights as a confirmation of radiative forcing similar to estimates by IPCC and others. That's the problem with a lot of the "famous" works of GW... Definitely wouldn't qualify as evidence for requiring massive global redistribution of wealth or declaring of CO2 as a pollutant.

As you stated, the problem is EXACTLY that we've only had advanced instruments in space for less than 30 years to measure all sorts of phenomena that is critical to Climate Science. And with all the rush to judgments being made, there won't be the patience to observe changes that may cycle in multi-decadal or even 100s of years. One of my issues is -- The sensitivity of the GreenHouse mechanism to even SMALL shifts in the FREQUENCY distribution of incoming Solar Irradiance. We now know from satellites what we couldn't measure from the ground. That there seem to be shifts in energy between bands associated with the solar cycle. And if LONGTIME shifts are present -- then those numbers from Trenberth on INCOMING forcing would change by maybe the same amount he improbably ended up with for an "imbalance"..

 

[jc456]

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.

So where is the tropospheric hot spot that would necessarily exist if that hypothesis were correct....it is the "smoking gun" the proof that the hypothesis is correct...and yet, it doesn't exist. With any other hypothesis failure of predicted phenomena to materialize is grounds to scrap it and look for one that can actually make sound predictions...but the radiative greenhouse hypothesis isn't held to such standards. It has apologists who incessantly talk around its many blatant failures. How many failures must a hypothesis experience in your opinion before it's falsified?

We covered this already in post #508 where I said,

"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."
​

Can you prove the greenhouse effect? Has it actually been tested?



Funny stuff.

So what is the temperature of the control? 79 what is the temperature of the CO2 tank 79. Too funny. And then the dude jumps in and says well earlier it was 81. hahahahahahhaha I see this kind of shit in most if not all of the supposed experiments. And then you want to know why there are skeptics and why questions come up as they do? Brain wash the little second grader. again funny, poor kid.

Oh and the dude also comments on the fog in the jar. BTW, the same in all three. So, what is different?

 

[jc456]

here from youtube CO2 impacts....

 

[Wuwei]

As you stated, the problem is EXACTLY that we've only had advanced instruments in space for less than 30 years to measure all sorts of phenomena that is critical to Climate Science. And with all the rush to judgments being made, there won't be the patience to observe changes that may cycle in multi-decadal or even 100s of years. One of my issues is -- The sensitivity of the GreenHouse mechanism to even SMALL shifts in the FREQUENCY distribution of incoming Solar Irradiance. We now know from satellites what we couldn't measure from the ground. That there seem to be shifts in energy between bands associated with the solar cycle. And if LONGTIME shifts are present -- then those numbers from Trenberth on INCOMING forcing would change by maybe the same amount he improbably ended up with for an "imbalance"..

The CERES satellite data sets measured energy in and out of the earth and showed a large surplus energy hitting the earth. Of course cloud cover was a major defining factor in that data. As I understand it the satellite tracked the cloud cover rather well. I believe it was in a polar orbit. That type of survey would directly yield yearly Earth energy gain, not yearly temperature change.
However, it seems that nobody has made a big thing of data set one way or another.

 

[SSDD]

And yet that flow from cool to warm has never been observed....it is a mathematical construct....unobservable....untestable.....unmeasurable.

We also went through that once before in a different thread.
Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency | Page 35 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I will repeat the conclusion here:
The Cosmic Microwave Background has a temperature of 2.7 degrees K. Radio telescopes are hundreds of degrees warmer. Yet the CMB was able to penetrate the warmer atmosphere and strike a warmer reflector dish and be detected by a slightly warmer (4 deg K) sensor.

That is an “observable … testable … measurable” counterexample to your misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics.

CMB was detected via resonance frequency with a radio telescope...if you want to actually measure CMB, you need an instrument that has been cooled down to 2.7K

 

[SSDD]

Measured all the time.. I've given you several studies with the results. ALMOST similar to pointing a IR thermometer at the sky..

You think your IR thermometer only measures energy moving towards you?

PS --- Last time we discussed this -- you tried to BS the studies by attacking the measuring device without knowing that one of my specialties is multi-spectral imaging. Wanna try again???[

Like your belief that you have an instrument that is actually counting photons?.... and actual device that is counting theoretical particles....right. People fool themselves with instrumentation all the time.

 

[SSDD]

We covered this already in post #508 where I said,

"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."
​

The greenhouse hypothesis is radiative in nature....if radiation is not the driver then the greenhouse effect as described by climate science does not exist....something else does and it is about time that the failed radiative greenhouse hypothesis is scrapped and work being on a hypothesis that is closer to reality.

 

[flacaltenn]

Measured all the time.. I've given you several studies with the results. ALMOST similar to pointing a IR thermometer at the sky..

You think your IR thermometer only measures energy moving towards you?

PS --- Last time we discussed this -- you tried to BS the studies by attacking the measuring device without knowing that one of my specialties is multi-spectral imaging. Wanna try again???[

Like your belief that you have an instrument that is actually counting photons?.... and actual device that is counting theoretical particles....right. People fool themselves with instrumentation all the time.

OMG -- Call the FDA -- they just approved my photon-counting camera design for protein marker bio-fluorescence. I've measured small numbers of photons before --- have you????

If you have a material chucking off 1 or 2 photons per microsecond -- you simply add them in a sensor bucket for a second or two --- you'll get an accurate count if you do it right. Done all the time in DOZENS of fields of science and engineering.

Could just be witchcraft and luck I guess --- but it detects various forms of HumanPapVirus..

 

[flacaltenn]

We covered this already in post #508 where I said,

"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."
​

The greenhouse hypothesis is radiative in nature....if radiation is not the driver then the greenhouse effect as described by climate science does not exist....something else does and it is about time that the failed radiative greenhouse hypothesis is scrapped and work being on a hypothesis that is closer to reality.

Like I said -- your "professor" is pulling your leg.. The fact that CO2 might delay ejecting a photon for a second changes nothing about the radiative nature of a cloud or GHGas. In all those billions of kinetic collisions he clouded with statistically smoke. The CO2 is probably close to equal likelihood of GAINING kinetic energy as losing it in the intervening second. That 1 billionth stat -- is just fooling some natives into worshipping his "cleverness".

 

[Wuwei]

And yet that flow from cool to warm has never been observed....it is a mathematical construct....unobservable....untestable.....unmeasurable.

We also went through that once before in a different thread.
Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency | Page 35 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I will repeat the conclusion here:
The Cosmic Microwave Background has a temperature of 2.7 degrees K. Radio telescopes are hundreds of degrees warmer. Yet the CMB was able to penetrate the warmer atmosphere and strike a warmer reflector dish and be detected by a slightly warmer (4 deg K) sensor.

That is an “observable … testable … measurable” counterexample to your misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics.

CMB was detected via resonance frequency with a radio telescope...if you want to actually measure CMB, you need an instrument that has been cooled down to 2.7K

You are saying that the CMB actually did hit the telescope but then you immediately imply it didn't. Which is it?

 

[Wuwei]

The greenhouse hypothesis is radiative in nature....if radiation is not the driver then the greenhouse effect as described by climate science does not exist....something else does and it is about time that the failed radiative greenhouse hypothesis is scrapped and work being on a hypothesis that is closer to reality.

I understand that you are saying that the earth is not radiating. That comes as a great surprise. Do you think that is why the earth is warm and outer space is so cold?

 

[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..

Billy Bob. Quit your whining. Nobody is interested in the crap you get from blogs.

Take your own advice and quit posting crap from left wit sources that have no bearing on real science. That "blog" has more credibility than you or your idiot crap you post. At least my 'blog' can back up its assertions with FACTS.. You, not so much..

 

[Wuwei]

Take your own advice and quit posting crap from left wit sources that have no bearing on real science. That "blog" has more credibility than you or your idiot crap you post. At least my 'blog' can back up its assertions with FACTS.. You, not so much..

Stop​

 

[flacaltenn]

Wuwei ---- my belief is that they don't want to win arguments the hard way. They want to invent "secret weapons" to try and impeach basic accepted science. One of the ugliest things I've ever seen was when Dr Roy Spencer was viciously attacked by the skeptic community for simply acknowledging that Radiative transfer from the atmos was "flowing from a colder source to a warmer surface" . In fact, the net transfer ALWAYS obeyed the 2nd law Thermo, but trying to explain that to them was a fool's errand..

And yet that flow from cool to warm has never been observed....it is a mathematical construct....unobservable....untestable.....unmeasurable.

That's because you don't know the diff between HEAT modes of thermal flow and Electromagnetic modes of thermal flow. Photons are not heat until they are absorbed by a molecule capable of absorbing them. And until they collide with matter --- not a chance they alter their path because of the temperature. (disclaimer -- turbulence in matter DUE to heat --- CAN change scatter and direction of EM propagation -- all that is secondary to the argument)

Thankfully, Neither thermal modes or radiative modes of heat flow violate ANY laws of physics.
Remain stupid my friend -- and read my sigline again..

 

[SSDD]

You are saying that the CMB actually did hit the telescope but then you immediately imply it didn't. Which is it?

Radio telescopes don't measure IR radiation.

 

[SSDD]

The greenhouse hypothesis is radiative in nature....if radiation is not the driver then the greenhouse effect as described by climate science does not exist....something else does and it is about time that the failed radiative greenhouse hypothesis is scrapped and work being on a hypothesis that is closer to reality.

I understand that you are saying that the earth is not radiating. That comes as a great surprise. Do you think that is why the earth is warm and outer space is so cold?

Can you differentiate between a thing that radiates and a hypothetical effect that operates via radiation?

 

[SSDD]

That's because you don't know the diff between HEAT modes of thermal flow and Electromagnetic modes of thermal flow. Photons are not heat until they are absorbed by a molecule capable of absorbing them.

Can you prove the existence of photons?

Remain faithful.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL

 

[Wuwei]

You are saying that the CMB actually did hit the telescope but then you immediately imply it didn't. Which is it?

Radio telescopes don't measure IR radiation.

bolometer : definition of bolometer and synonyms of bolometer (English)

"Bolometers directly detect thermal radiation. For submillimeter wavelengths, bolometers are among the most sensitive available detectors, and are therefore used for astronomy at these wavelengths. To achieve the best sensitivity, they must be cooled to a fraction of a degree above absolute zero (typically from 50 millikelvins to 300 mK).
Notable examples of bolometers employed in submillimeter astronomy include the Herschel Space Observatory, the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope, and the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy(SOFIA)."​

Since bolometers directly detect heat, they are not dependent on the narrow band masers that can detect only a single frequency at a time. And since they are much colder than the incoming radiation there should be no problem detecting the CMB at 2.7 K

That is an example of a Radio telescope that does directly detect IR radiation. What do you think of that?

 

[Wuwei]

I understand that you are saying that the earth is not radiating. That comes as a great surprise. Do you think that is why the earth is warm and outer space is so cold?

Can you differentiate between a thing that radiates and a hypothetical effect that operates via radiation?

You are answering my question with a question. Again, are you saying the Earth does not radiate?