Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

[mamooth]

Frank, Crick explained all that to you on this thread.. You're simply a liar. There's no point in speaking with you, given that no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie in response.

Basically, this thread is now just an illustration of how some deniers display a histrionic personality disorder. That is, they seek attention, and they don't care how badly they have to act to get it.

And as for DrGloom

in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

That's 100% wrong. Moose do much better in the cold years. It's the heat that kills them. If cold killed the moose, you wouldn't see them in northern Alaska, and you would see them in the southern USA.

Why is cold better for them? Brain worm parasite and ticks. Both are winter-killed by very cold temperatures. If winter temperatures never get too cold, the parasite populations explode and kill the mooses in a very gruesome manner.

With winters warming moose are devastated by exploding tick populations - The Washington Post

 

[G.T.]

Frank is o-b-s-e-s-s-e-d

 

[jc456]

Nice job frank

 

[jc456]

Funny when the leftist feel the need to whimper in a thread together so they all feel good. LOL

 

[Crick]

I think it's actually worse than that.

 

[jc456]

I think it's actually worse than that.

I agree. First factual post you've made

 

[Billy_Bob]

Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax
By ElmerB on January 23, 2015 in News, Opinion

By Elmer Beauregard

A handy collection of denier memes, making convenient and efficient the refutation thereof.

The Senate voted this week on whether Climate Change is real or a hoax, I think it’s a hoax and here’s why.

You fail to note how the Senate vote went. It went 98-1 that it is not a hoax. And, of course that includes a fair number of republicans.

I’m sure you’ve heard in the news that 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year ever. If it actually was “hottest year ever” you’d think all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen would be happening now

Why would we think that? The sun is going to go nova someday. Today is the latest day there has ever been. Should we think that the sun will go nova today? Your statement is illogical and irrational.

but instead the opposite is happening.

The opposite of "all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen". That's interesting. Let's see what you've got.

1. Record Ice

In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it.

There is a great deal of Antarctic sea ice because the collapse of the shelves has allowed Antarctic glaciers to accelerate up to five fold. The entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet has destabilized irretrievably and will crumble into the oceans. Given that the basin under that sheet is below sea level, there is a non-trivial chance that the collapse could be catastrophic. The ice in that shelf is sufficient to raise the level of the world's oceans over 20 feet.

Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014.

And then continued downward as it's been headed for at least the last 36 years.

The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014. You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said.

The Great Lakes and the entire northern midwest had record colds due to the Polar Vortex. The Polar Vortex is the result of Rossby Waves. Those waves are a large scale oscillation in the polar jet stream. While cold Arctic air was drawn into the northern midwest, warm equatorial air was drawn north in the Bering straits and Alaska (which had as many hot records as the Great Lakes had cold. That pattern was repeated around the world. The global temperature change from the effect was ZERO.

2. Record Snow

2014 saw record snowfall in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is.

Same effect.

3. Record Cold

In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records remember the Polar Vortex? You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”

Same effect

4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted

Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.

Bullshit

5. Polar Bears Are Thriving

You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving.

Bulllshit

Polar bear are dependent on ice but they could shift themselves to dry land. Unfortunately that is NOT true for their primary food source: seals.

6. Moose Are Making A Comeback

A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming, then they did a study and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

I'm glad the moose are okay. They are not an indicator of global warming.

7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.

Bullshit. The Oregon Petition, from which you get your 31,000 scientists number, is a piece of shit. They maintained NO control or error checking over the credentials provided by signatories and they have had NO requirement that their signatories have ANY significant knowledge of climate science. Real surveys of climate scientists and their work include the five listed on this graphic:

To which we can add three additional studies:
1) A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[123]

2) A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.[124]

3) James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[125] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[126]

8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man

In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.

No one has ever contended that man was producing more CO2 than nature. That isn't the point. The Earth possesses systems that produce and consume CO2. Prior to 1750, CO2 levels had been in at least quasi-equilibrium for an enormous span of time. During the history of the planet, those levels change, but they do so over hundreds of thousand to millions of years - not over a century and a half. CO2 has not risen as rapidly as its current rate at any point in the last 65 million years. It rose more rapidly then because the Earth was struck by a seven mile wide asteroid which essentially set the planet aflame. The CO2 humans are emitting exceeds that being taken up by the Earth's flora (simultaneously shrinking due to deforestation) and, as you well know, its levels in the atmosphere have been building. The CO2 added to the Earth's atmosphere - that raised its level from 280 ppm to 400 ppm - are of human origin, not natural.

9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.

If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.

Satellites are not the best source of temperature data. They don't actually measure temperature and the data they do collect is not from the surface, where we live and where the greatest mass of air is present. There are no significant, unaccounted urban heat island effects. Even if there were, the vast bulk of the data comes from the oceans and rural areas in any case. UHI is the hoax. The data finding these warmest years is valid and properly calculated. The world continues to get warmer. There has been no hiatus.

10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players

One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.

The world's climate scientists are not playboy millionaires. This is a purely ad hominem attack and has zero validity in any case.

Crick has hit every single alarmist excuse, yet he offers up no factual data to support his position.

Just five years ago Satellite data was cream of the crop when it was agreeing with them. Now, because they can not infill and adjust it, it has become second rate to the heavily adjusted and made up land data set.

Man it fun to see you guys squirm around a collapsing meme...

 

[Crick]

Here, some of Dr Roy Spencer's tropospheric microwave sounding data. Note the average of the first few years and the average of the last few years. Which way's the trend going Billy Boy?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, Crick explained all that to you on this thread.. You're simply a liar. There's no point in speaking with you, given that no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie in response.

Basically, this thread is now just an illustration of how some deniers display a histrionic personality disorder. That is, they seek attention, and they don't care how badly they have to act to get it.

And as for DrGloom

in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

That's 100% wrong. Moose do much better in the cold years. It's the heat that kills them. If cold killed the moose, you wouldn't see them in northern Alaska, and you would see them in the southern USA.

Why is cold better for them? Brain worm parasite and ticks. Both are winter-killed by very cold temperatures. If winter temperatures never get too cold, the parasite populations explode and kill the mooses in a very gruesome manner.

With winters warming moose are devastated by exploding tick populations - The Washington Post

Frank, Crick explained all that to you on this thread.. You're simply a liar. There's no point in speaking with you, given that no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie in response.

Basically, this thread is now just an illustration of how some deniers display a histrionic personality disorder. That is, they seek attention, and they don't care how badly they have to act to get it.

And as for DrGloom

in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

That's 100% wrong. Moose do much better in the cold years. It's the heat that kills them. If cold killed the moose, you wouldn't see them in northern Alaska, and you would see them in the southern USA.

Why is cold better for them? Brain worm parasite and ticks. Both are winter-killed by very cold temperatures. If winter temperatures never get too cold, the parasite populations explode and kill the mooses in a very gruesome manner.

With winters warming moose are devastated by exploding tick populations - The Washington Post

Crick, just linked to article that mention Excess Heat as if it actually exists, so that's no explanation

Where was this "Excess Heat" before it was absorbed by the oceans? It wasn't in the atmosphere, where was it?

How did the Excess Heat manage to get 800M deep in the oceans?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank is o-b-s-e-s-s-e-d

Frank had his BS meter pinned by "excess heat"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here, some of Dr Roy Spencer's tropospheric microwave sounding data. Note the average of the first few years and the average of the last few years. Which way's the trend going Billy Boy?

Crick, where's the "Excess heat" that's since been absorbed by the oceans?

 

[Crick]

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

Where was this imaginary "excess heat" BEFORE it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick ?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

Where was this imaginary "excess heat" BEFORE it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?

It was emitted out of the sun, traveled in photons and entered our Atmosphere!!! hahaha...


After that it gets very complex as some of the heat from off the oceans, land or what ever was transferred back into the Atmosphere by Ir Radiation and readmitted off of the green house effect...Which some of it also was stored within our oceans.

 

[Crick]

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

Where was this imaginary "excess heat" BEFORE it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?

Matthew's pegged it. Energy left the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation (ie, photons). It entered the Earth's atmosphere where roughly 70% of it was absorbed directly by the oceans. The rest was absorbed by plants and trees and rocks and dirt and the tops of people's heads. A goodly portion of that energy gets reradiated at longer wavelengths by all these objects (including the oceans). Almost every bit of that gets reabsorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, where it's rereradiated. Some of that comes back down and once more strike the ocean, the land, the tops of people's heads and so forth. Some goes up. Eventually, a significant amount is reradiated by GHGs in the upper stratosphere and escapes into space, never to strike the top of my head again.

And, as I've told you three or four times now in just the last couple of days, water BELOW the surface and shallow depths that can receive EM (light) directly is warmed by the MOVEMENT of water. Warmed surface water gets pulled down and is replaced by colder water from below. Now that water gets warmed before it too gets pulled down. Do you get the picture Frank?

Frank, when are you going to pay enough attention to what people tell you that you'll stop asking questions that've just been answered? It's simply not acceptable that we should have to explain the same thing to you over and over and over again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

Where was this imaginary "excess heat" BEFORE it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?

Matthew's pegged it. Energy left the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation (ie, photons). It entered the Earth's atmosphere where roughly 70% of it was absorbed directly by the oceans. The rest was absorbed by plants and trees and rocks and dirt and the tops of people's heads. A goodly portion of that energy gets reradiated at longer wavelengths by all these objects (including the oceans). Almost every bit of that gets reabsorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, where it's rereradiated. Some of that comes back down and once more strike the ocean, the land, the tops of people's heads and so forth. Some goes up. Eventually, a significant amount is reradiated by GHGs in the upper stratosphere and escapes into space, never to strike the top of my head again.

And, as I've told you three or four times now in just the last couple of days, water BELOW the surface and shallow depths that can receive EM (light) directly is warmed by the MOVEMENT of water. Warmed surface water gets pulled down and is replaced by colder water from below. Now that water gets warmed before it too gets pulled down. Do you get the picture Frank?

Frank, when are you going to pay enough attention to what people tell you that you'll stop asking questions that've just been answered? It's simply not acceptable that we should have to explain the same thing to you over and over and over again.

GHG's account for a tiny fraction of Earth's atmosphere and are not evenly distributed, yet you claim the reabsorb 100% of the energy radiated outward? Did you just make that up? Is that a "Fact" like "excess energy"?

How is it that 70% of initial energy hits the oceans but 93% of the imaginary "excess heat" is now absorbed by the ocean.

Once again, where is this imaginary "excess heat" showing up in the atmosphere prior to it being absorbed. Remember it takes at least 4 times the energy to heat the ocean, you said it takes 700 times the energy. Do you still stand by that?

Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable say US scientists Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

Where was this imaginary "excess heat" BEFORE it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?

It was emitted out of the sun, traveled in photons and entered our Atmosphere!!! hahaha...


After that it gets very complex as some of the heat from off the oceans, land or what ever was transferred back into the Atmosphere by Ir Radiation and readmitted off of the green house effect...Which some of it also was stored within our oceans.

That's good old regular Heat, where's the "excess"?

So if the imaginary heat is GHG "Excess" why doesn't it show up in the atmosphere? No warming 2 decades, remember?

Also, it take at least 4 times the heat to warm the oceans than it does the air (Crick said it takes 700 times the energy) You expect the atmosphere to be EXTREMELY hot in order to raise ocean temp as you allege. How come there's absolutely no evidence of the atmospheric heating require for your theory to be in the same galaxy as even remotely possible?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Frank, Crick explained all that to you on this thread.. You're simply a liar. There's no point in speaking with you, given that no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie in response.

Basically, this thread is now just an illustration of how some deniers display a histrionic personality disorder. That is, they seek attention, and they don't care how badly they have to act to get it.

And as for DrGloom

in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

That's 100% wrong. Moose do much better in the cold years. It's the heat that kills them. If cold killed the moose, you wouldn't see them in northern Alaska, and you would see them in the southern USA.

Why is cold better for them? Brain worm parasite and ticks. Both are winter-killed by very cold temperatures. If winter temperatures never get too cold, the parasite populations explode and kill the mooses in a very gruesome manner.

With winters warming moose are devastated by exploding tick populations - The Washington Post

Frank, Crick explained all that to you on this thread.. You're simply a liar. There's no point in speaking with you, given that no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie in response.

Basically, this thread is now just an illustration of how some deniers display a histrionic personality disorder. That is, they seek attention, and they don't care how badly they have to act to get it.

And as for DrGloom

in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

That's 100% wrong. Moose do much better in the cold years. It's the heat that kills them. If cold killed the moose, you wouldn't see them in northern Alaska, and you would see them in the southern USA.

Why is cold better for them? Brain worm parasite and ticks. Both are winter-killed by very cold temperatures. If winter temperatures never get too cold, the parasite populations explode and kill the mooses in a very gruesome manner.

With winters warming moose are devastated by exploding tick populations - The Washington Post

Crick, just linked to article that mention Excess Heat as if it actually exists, so that's no explanation

Where was this "Excess Heat" before it was absorbed by the oceans? It wasn't in the atmosphere, where was it?

How did the Excess Heat manage to get 800M deep in the oceans?

Funny how they dance around physics and physical laws ignoring them when it is inconvenient.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

Where was this imaginary "excess heat" BEFORE it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?

Matthew's pegged it. Energy left the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation (ie, photons). It entered the Earth's atmosphere where roughly 70% of it was absorbed directly by the oceans. The rest was absorbed by plants and trees and rocks and dirt and the tops of people's heads. A goodly portion of that energy gets reradiated at longer wavelengths by all these objects (including the oceans). Almost every bit of that gets reabsorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, where it's rereradiated. Some of that comes back down and once more strike the ocean, the land, the tops of people's heads and so forth. Some goes up. Eventually, a significant amount is reradiated by GHGs in the upper stratosphere and escapes into space, never to strike the top of my head again.

And, as I've told you three or four times now in just the last couple of days, water BELOW the surface and shallow depths that can receive EM (light) directly is warmed by the MOVEMENT of water. Warmed surface water gets pulled down and is replaced by colder water from below. Now that water gets warmed before it too gets pulled down. Do you get the picture Frank?

Frank, when are you going to pay enough attention to what people tell you that you'll stop asking questions that've just been answered? It's simply not acceptable that we should have to explain the same thing to you over and over and over again.

GHG's account for a tiny fraction of Earth's atmosphere and are not evenly distributed, yet you claim the reabsorb 100% of the energy radiated outward? Did you just make that up? Is that a "Fact" like "excess energy"?

How is it that 70% of initial energy hits the oceans but 93% of the imaginary "excess heat" is now absorbed by the ocean.

Once again, where is this imaginary "excess heat" showing up in the atmosphere prior to it being absorbed. Remember it takes at least 4 times the energy to heat the ocean, you said it takes 700 times the energy. Do you still stand by that?

Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable say US scientists Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Nice post! Shows their lying and deception quite nicely. The ambient air would have to be four times what it is today to get the rise these people predict at the surface.