Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4C by 2100

[Old Rocks]

The warming is linear at least when you're talking about atmospheric temperature as warming has been pretty much .14c/decade. This has not one fucking thing about exponential increase of temperature raise as that isn't the reality...

All I did was estimate how much warming at the current linear rate would occur by 2100.

And that is certainly a best case estimate. There are some huge unknowns out there in the permafrost and clathrates.

 

[Old Rocks]

The world scientist have been directed to cover up their findings, NOW WHAT SCHMUCK?

Yeah, it's all a grand conspiracy like the JFK assassination and the Apollo Moon landing hoax.

Yes global warming is a conspiracy

Careful there, Rabble, you are drooling again.

 

[Old Rocks]

The winter storm is the biggest to hit Chicago on New Year’s Day since 1999. As of 9:30 a.m. Thursday, 5.8 inches had fallen at O’Hare International Airport. The northern suburbs were hit hardest, with 18 inches reported in Gurnee, 13.8 inches in Riverwoods, 13.7 inches in Mundelein, and 12.9 inches in Beach Park.

Lake Effect Snow Could Dump Up To 10 More Inches « CBS Chicago

And in Buffalo, New York, the comment on that would be "What snow?". Lake effect snowstorms tend to dump snow measured in feet, not inches.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah, it's all a grand conspiracy like the JFK assassination and the Apollo Moon landing hoax.

Yes global warming is a conspiracy

Careful there, Rabble, you are drooling again.

Stop breathing through your mouth, I can smell your breath through the screen or was that I just farted?

 

[Abraham3]

You can't tell when you fart? Is that a failure of hearing, smell or both?

 

[polarbear]

The warming is linear at least when you're talking about atmospheric temperature as warming has been pretty much .14c/decade. This has not one fucking thing about exponential increase of temperature raise as that isn't the reality...

All I did was estimate how much warming at the current linear rate would occur by 2100.

I knew all along that you would say that !
Thanks for coming out and saying it, because with that you just killed all the "back-radiation" arguments.
Radiative heat transfer follows this law:

q = σ T^4 A (1)
where
q = heat transfer per unit time (W)
σ = 5.6703 10-8 (W/m2K4) - The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
T = absolute temperature Kelvin (K)
A = area of the emitting body (m2)


and:


Net Radiation Loss Rate

If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as
q = ε σ (Th^4 - Tc^4) Ac (3)
​

So tell me, since when is T^4 a linear function ?
If "warming is linear"as you say, then radiative heat transfer from the CO2 is not the cause of it.
The only way it`s linear is if you pencil in a line to so it suits the exaggerated simple milk maid math nonsense freaks like you keep preaching.

Fact is that anybody who writes programs does have to know math and the guys that do write these simulation programs also know that it is not a linear function...and use the equation q = ε σ (Th^4 - Tc^4) Ac
...and just as soon as they do every model out put shoots way over the top.
So how do "climatologists" fix that?
Simple, they say just what you just said " warming is linear " and pencil in a straight line that suits their "averaging science"
Like I said, how much more can you dumb down math and physics?
And how is it that the idiots who don`t know the first thing about it call everybody else who does know math & physics "ignorant" or a "denier" of scientific facts.

 

[Abraham3]

Can I suggest that you use T^4 to represent T raised to the fourth power? T4 looks like a simple variable name.

 

[Abraham3]

Fact is that anybody who writes programs does have to know math and the guys that do write these simulation programs also know that it is not a linear function[/B][/U]...and use the equation q = ε σ (Th4 - Tc4) Ac...and just as soon as they do every model out put shoots way over the top.
So how do "climatologists" fix that?
Simple, they say just what you just said " warming is linear" and pencil in a straight line that suits their "averaging science"
Like I said, how much more can you dumb down math and physics?
And how is it that the idiots who don`t know the first thing about it call everybody else who does know math & physics "ignorant" or a "denier" of scientific facts.

Would you care to explain how you know what all these climate scientists and model writers are doing? Last I heard, you were an organic chemist, not a computer scientist, physicist or anything else that would have ANY direct involvement with the creation or running of GCMs. Yet you claim to know what they do and what they think. How's that happen?

 

[polarbear]

Can I suggest that you use T^4 to represent T raised to the fourth power? T4 looks like a simple variable name.

Not my fault...its the html editor they use here which has a problem with exponents. While you write in the edit window exponents like X², etc appear just like they should as X^2, ...till you click on "submit reply"
The strange thing is that it does that only if you quote an equation and not if you take the trouble to enter the ASCII code for an exponent manually...as I just did here.
If you copy& paste this...then the editor they use here screws it all up:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

σ = 5.6703 10-8 (W/m2K4) - The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant

And m^2, K^4 changes to m2 and K4 after you posted it

After that an X² appears as X2...and you have to go back to edit it again.
Okay then I`ll humor you and edit in the ^ so it`l stay as an exponent.
What the hell is your problem?...could you not figure out that it was T^4 ?
I just edited in the ^ in that post..are you happy now ?
So send your suggestion to the USMB, I have done so regarding that annoying html snag several times, to no avail

 

[Abraham3]

Until I read your text I was wondering why you were describing those functions as nonlinear. I just scanned across them looking for nonlinear operators and saw none.

Now back to the next question: how is it you know what GCM authors think and do?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Abraham, Old Rocks and Matthew/Jake need to tell their story to China and India

 

[Theowl32]

So these Matthew Abraham elite liberal academia types saying this 40 years ago, have been proven utterly absurd.

1."Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald


2."We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner


3."Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial

4."Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

5. "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich


6. "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

7. "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

8. "In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine


9. "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

10. "Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich


11. "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt


12. "[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine


13. "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt



That was when it was global cooling.


They are funny aren't they?

 

[skookerasbil]

Computer models are useless for predictions


•This period of no-warming has now been as long as the previous period of warming. In other words, the stall in warming is getting long enough now to be statistically significant.
•The Met Office revealed its biases by how it unveiled this fact. Previously, when their data suggested the climate was warming, they heralded that fact loudly with bold predictions of catastrophes to come. But when their data suggested their predictions were wrong and the climate wasn’t warming, they released the data with as little fanfare as possible.
•Finally, and most important, this data demonstrates clearly that all the computer models used by climate scientists to predict the future climate are patently wrong. They don’t understand what is happening, even if some of them refuse to admit it.


The models are wrong | Behind The Black




Only Matthew thinks that this will matter!!!




Like Ive said for a long time.........if people are out waterskiing on a north Alaskan lake in mid January for 3 weeks, then people will care.

 

[skookerasbil]

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."

- Prof. Stephen Schneider,

Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

 

[skookerasbil]

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."

- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

 

[skookerasbil]

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."

- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

 

[skookerasbil]

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

 

[skookerasbil]

"It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true."

- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace



Funny the irony in the statement above.......the AGW nutters have shot themselves in the face with bomb throwing overreach over the past dozen years.



losing

 

[skookerasbil]

The Green Agenda

 

[polarbear]

I have no idea what strawman you were addressing there. I can see it didn't resemble anything related to the global warming issue. However, you have definitely refuted ... something.

It`s not a "straw man" I`m addressing.... and almost all of the graphs related to the global warming issue look like this:
(after all the source data has been "averaged" and whitewashed to death, I might add)

Linear, just like Mathew claims
while the models produce something entirely different, based on the fact that radiative heat transfer is not linear and complies with q = ε σ (Th^4 - Tc^4) Ac

Which is why the computer models, that do use the proper math fail so miserably..on the high side !
Note that linear heat transfer does apply for heat conduction and heat transfer by convection
but in no way to "back-radiation" or any other radiative heat transfer

And no "Abraham3" I`m not the only one who knows that..everybody who has any programming +math skills and studies these computer models knows full well that this is the problem !...( that running the right equations without a cheat yields results that are way too high off the mark)
Only difference is that they don`t want to call it a "cheat"...because "corrected" or "updated Version xyz" sounds so much nicer.

So in the end all we got for "climate science" is a trial and error method...and since when is any method based on trail & error "scientific"?
It`s something that monkeys and lab rats do, not scientists !

Skookerasbil might prefer this one