Global Warming is such Wooly Mammoth Crap.

[SSDD]

Got nothing definitive to prove my point. Lots of research available on the subject. The world seems to be getting warmer. Atmospheric CO2 is at a high level and climbing rapidly. At this point, there is little we can do about it as carbon fuel consumption and CO2 emissions continue to grow. We humans are a factor but we are adaptable.

Since the absorption of IR by CO2 having a coherent relationship with warming in the atmosphere is the entire point, don't you find it a bit odd that you would have to tell me that you have nothing definitive with which to prove your point? Considering that warmers are telling us that we must spend trillions of dollars, adjust the way we live, and do irreparable harm to whole economies, wouldn't you think that definitive evidence would be inescapable?...front page of every newspaper.....billboards...full page ads in every magazine...SMOKING GUN FOUND...and mountains of definitive, indisputable evidence?....wouldn't you expect that rather than having to meekly admit that you have nothing definitive?

And "the world" isn't getting warmer. Some regions are warming...some regions are cooling, and a great many regions are not doing much of anything at all. I started a thread a while back titled "if the globe isn't warming, why is it called global warming. In that thread I provided quite a few regional temperature graphs...some were warming, more were cooling, and more than that were not changing in any significant way. "Global" warming only shows up in the heavily adjusted, homogenized, infilled global product produced by government agencies...most regional records don't show the same thing.

And the temperature increases we are seeing are well within the limits of natural variability. In fact, nothing that we are seeing in the global climate is even beginning to approach the known limits of natural variability.

As to CO2 levels, actual research calls into question whether or not we have any significant influence on global atmospheric CO2 levels. Our contributions don't even offset the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year. The claim that we are driving up CO2 levels is patently false.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

Clip: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere."


https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

Clip: Conclusion:
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whetherrepresenting sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Clip: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”

And older work suggests the same thing:


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

clip: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”
“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration

Clip: Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO, Concentration
“The initial decrease of the SI in the Friesland phase [~11,400 years ago] suggests that atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose by ∼65 ppmv in less than a century. … Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. Si-based C02 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were >300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception.”


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d9d9/eb6e213a1fa8fec2c877685baa81817b15a5.pdf

Clip: “In few fields considered to be science-based has there been such a high degree of polarization and refusal to consider alternate explanations of natural phenomena as in climate change at present.”

“The scenario seems to be that between 1985 and 1988, a decision was made to present pre-1958 CO2 concentrations with no humps or dips and to proclaim a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.”

“Compared with the so-called pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm, a level of 410 ppm was found in 1812, rising to 450 ppm in 1825. There were levels of 370 ppm in 1857, and 4 sets of measurements gave 350–415 ppm around 1940 (Figure 10). From 1870–1920 values remained within 295–310 ppm. From 1955–1965 the values were 325 ppm. Beck chose the most carefully done assays for this graph. One was from Poona, India. An effort not described by Beck was one of 350 determinations near Point Barrow, Alaska, from 1947–1949, with a mean result of 420 ppm (Hock et al., 1952).”
“The CO2 levels found at Mauna Loa range from 315 ppm in 1957 to 385 ppm in 2007, a period of 50 years. They are similar on Antarctica, showing good mixing of the atmosphere. Since there was a bigger rise from 312 to 415 ppm from 1927–1944 (27 years), shown by chemical assays as described above (Figure 10), there should be no reason for alarm at present. The start of the infrared data in 1958 showed a CO2 concentration that was 12 ppm lower by NDIR assay than the best chemical data of the period. The chemical data are very consistent with each other. This discrepancy has never been resolved.”
“From 0–60° north, the period from 1905–1940 showed about 1 °C of warming, then steady or dropping temperatures. The 60–70° north record showed about 1.8 °C of warming from 1922–1960, with sinking temperatures thereafter (Kushnir, 1994). This is the reason why the chemical assays registered a large increase in atmospheric CO2, from 295 ppm in 1885 to 440 ppm in 1944 (Figure 10). Ocean cooling of ~0.6 °C from 1940– 1970 (Kushnir, 1994) brought CO2 levels down for a while to 325 ppm from 1955–1965 (Figure 10).”


http://www.langtoninfo.com/web_content/9780521767187_frontmatter.pdf

“The resemblance between observed changes of CO2 and those anticipated from increased surface temperature also points to a major inconsistency between proxy records of previous climate. Proxy CO2 from the ice core record indicates a sharp increase after the nineteenth century. At earlier times, proxy CO2 becomes amorphous: Nearly homogeneous on time scales shorter than millennial, the ice core record implies virtually no change of atmospheric CO2. According to the above sensitivity, it therefore implies a global-mean climate that is “static,” largely devoid of changes in GMT and CO2. Proxy temperature (Fig. 1.45), on the other hand, exhibits centennial changes of GMT during the last millennium, as large as 0.5–1.0◦ K. In counterpart reconstructions, those changes are even greater (Section 1.6.2). It is noteworthy that, unlike proxy CO2 from the ice core record, proxy temperature in Fig. 1.45 rests on a variety of independent properties. In light of the observed sensitivity, those centennial changes of GMT must be attended by significant changes of CO2 during the last millennium. They reflect a global-mean climate that is “dynamic,” wherein GMT and CO2 change on a wide range of time scales. The two proxies of previous climate [global temperatures and CO2 concentration values] are incompatible. They cannot both be correct.” pg. 254


Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

Clip: “[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

 

[IanC]

Sorry guy, CO2 does not store energy at atmospheric temperatures...cool it to the point that it becomes liquid or solid, and it can store energy..but not in its gaseous form

Of course CO2 intercepts 15 micron energy being emitted from the surface, and stores it in the atmosphere by molecular collision which transforms it into kinetic energy and/or potential energy in the gravity field.

There is no limit as to how much 15 micron radiation can be absorbed because it is quickly transformed into other types of energy. But there is only a certain amount of total atmospheric energy that can be reemited as 15 micron radiation. This is controlled by temperature and the average time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit.

At sea level, the density of air means that an excited CO2 molecule is much more likely to give up its energy by collision than by emitting a photon. It is only at rarified heights that excited CO2 can emit a photon that can escape to space. The temperature at this height is around minus 60C so there is not as much energy to be converted into radiation.

The difference in the amount of 15 micron radiation produced at the 15C surface, and the amount produced at the -60C emission height, is the amount of energy being stored in the atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

Got nothing definitive to prove my point. Lots of research available on the subject. The world seems to be getting warmer. Atmospheric CO2 is at a high level and climbing rapidly. At this point, there is little we can do about it as carbon fuel consumption and CO2 emissions continue to grow. We humans are a factor but we are adaptable.

Since the absorption of IR by CO2 having a coherent relationship with warming in the atmosphere is the entire point, don't you find it a bit odd that you would have to tell me that you have nothing definitive with which to prove your point? Considering that warmers are telling us that we must spend trillions of dollars, adjust the way we live, and do irreparable harm to whole economies, wouldn't you think that definitive evidence would be inescapable?...front page of every newspaper.....billboards...full page ads in every magazine...SMOKING GUN FOUND...and mountains of definitive, indisputable evidence?....wouldn't you expect that rather than having to meekly admit that you have nothing definitive?

And "the world" isn't getting warmer. Some regions are warming...some regions are cooling, and a great many regions are not doing much of anything at all. I started a thread a while back titled "if the globe isn't warming, why is it called global warming. In that thread I provided quite a few regional temperature graphs...some were warming, more were cooling, and more than that were not changing in any significant way. "Global" warming only shows up in the heavily adjusted, homogenized, infilled global product produced by government agencies...most regional records don't show the same thing.

And the temperature increases we are seeing are well within the limits of natural variability. In fact, nothing that we are seeing in the global climate is even beginning to approach the known limits of natural variability.

As to CO2 levels, actual research calls into question whether or not we have any significant influence on global atmospheric CO2 levels. Our contributions don't even offset the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year. The claim that we are driving up CO2 levels is patently false.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

Clip: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere."


https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

Clip: Conclusion:
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whetherrepresenting sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Clip: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”

And older work suggests the same thing:


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

clip: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”
“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration

Clip: Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO, Concentration
“The initial decrease of the SI in the Friesland phase [~11,400 years ago] suggests that atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose by ∼65 ppmv in less than a century. … Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. Si-based C02 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were >300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception.”


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d9d9/eb6e213a1fa8fec2c877685baa81817b15a5.pdf

Clip: “In few fields considered to be science-based has there been such a high degree of polarization and refusal to consider alternate explanations of natural phenomena as in climate change at present.”

“The scenario seems to be that between 1985 and 1988, a decision was made to present pre-1958 CO2 concentrations with no humps or dips and to proclaim a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.”

“Compared with the so-called pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm, a level of 410 ppm was found in 1812, rising to 450 ppm in 1825. There were levels of 370 ppm in 1857, and 4 sets of measurements gave 350–415 ppm around 1940 (Figure 10). From 1870–1920 values remained within 295–310 ppm. From 1955–1965 the values were 325 ppm. Beck chose the most carefully done assays for this graph. One was from Poona, India. An effort not described by Beck was one of 350 determinations near Point Barrow, Alaska, from 1947–1949, with a mean result of 420 ppm (Hock et al., 1952).”
“The CO2 levels found at Mauna Loa range from 315 ppm in 1957 to 385 ppm in 2007, a period of 50 years. They are similar on Antarctica, showing good mixing of the atmosphere. Since there was a bigger rise from 312 to 415 ppm from 1927–1944 (27 years), shown by chemical assays as described above (Figure 10), there should be no reason for alarm at present. The start of the infrared data in 1958 showed a CO2 concentration that was 12 ppm lower by NDIR assay than the best chemical data of the period. The chemical data are very consistent with each other. This discrepancy has never been resolved.”
“From 0–60° north, the period from 1905–1940 showed about 1 °C of warming, then steady or dropping temperatures. The 60–70° north record showed about 1.8 °C of warming from 1922–1960, with sinking temperatures thereafter (Kushnir, 1994). This is the reason why the chemical assays registered a large increase in atmospheric CO2, from 295 ppm in 1885 to 440 ppm in 1944 (Figure 10). Ocean cooling of ~0.6 °C from 1940– 1970 (Kushnir, 1994) brought CO2 levels down for a while to 325 ppm from 1955–1965 (Figure 10).”


http://www.langtoninfo.com/web_content/9780521767187_frontmatter.pdf

“The resemblance between observed changes of CO2 and those anticipated from increased surface temperature also points to a major inconsistency between proxy records of previous climate. Proxy CO2 from the ice core record indicates a sharp increase after the nineteenth century. At earlier times, proxy CO2 becomes amorphous: Nearly homogeneous on time scales shorter than millennial, the ice core record implies virtually no change of atmospheric CO2. According to the above sensitivity, it therefore implies a global-mean climate that is “static,” largely devoid of changes in GMT and CO2. Proxy temperature (Fig. 1.45), on the other hand, exhibits centennial changes of GMT during the last millennium, as large as 0.5–1.0◦ K. In counterpart reconstructions, those changes are even greater (Section 1.6.2). It is noteworthy that, unlike proxy CO2 from the ice core record, proxy temperature in Fig. 1.45 rests on a variety of independent properties. In light of the observed sensitivity, those centennial changes of GMT must be attended by significant changes of CO2 during the last millennium. They reflect a global-mean climate that is “dynamic,” wherein GMT and CO2 change on a wide range of time scales. The two proxies of previous climate [global temperatures and CO2 concentration values] are incompatible. They cannot both be correct.” pg. 254


Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

Clip: “[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Thanks for that. It is a good example of how different scientists can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. The science is not settled.

Of course I see no reason to believe this set of papers are the 'truth' and others are 'lies'. There is a very large probability that all climate science papers are wrong, at least to some degree.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy, CO2 does not store energy at atmospheric temperatures...cool it to the point that it becomes liquid or solid, and it can store energy..but not in its gaseous form

Of course CO2 intercepts 15 micron energy being emitted from the surface, and stores it in the atmosphere by molecular collision which transforms it into kinetic energy and/or potential energy in the gravity field.

There is no limit as to how much 15 micron radiation can be absorbed because it is quickly transformed into other types of energy. But there is only a certain amount of total atmospheric energy that can be reemited as 15 micron radiation. This is controlled by temperature and the average time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit.

At sea level, the density of air means that an excited CO2 molecule is much more likely to give up its energy by collision than by emitting a photon. It is only at rarified heights that excited CO2 can emit a photon that can escape to space. The temperature at this height is around minus 60C so there is not as much energy to be converted into radiation.

The difference in the amount of 15 micron radiation produced at the 15C surface, and the amount produced at the -60C emission height, is the amount of energy being stored in the atmosphere.

You are missing an upper tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result of CO2 having the magical powers you attribute to it...no hot spot...no magic...your hypothesis is a failure...try looking to the real world and the actual observed, measured, empirical evidence which points to the absorption of IR by CO2 having no coherent relationship with warming in the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

Of course I see no reason to believe this set of papers are the 'truth' and others are 'lies'. There is a very large probability that all climate science papers are wrong, at least to some degree.

Sorry they don't jibe with your dogma.

 

[IanC]

Sorry guy, CO2 does not store energy at atmospheric temperatures...cool it to the point that it becomes liquid or solid, and it can store energy..but not in its gaseous form

Of course CO2 intercepts 15 micron energy being emitted from the surface, and stores it in the atmosphere by molecular collision which transforms it into kinetic energy and/or potential energy in the gravity field.

There is no limit as to how much 15 micron radiation can be absorbed because it is quickly transformed into other types of energy. But there is only a certain amount of total atmospheric energy that can be reemited as 15 micron radiation. This is controlled by temperature and the average time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit.

At sea level, the density of air means that an excited CO2 molecule is much more likely to give up its energy by collision than by emitting a photon. It is only at rarified heights that excited CO2 can emit a photon that can escape to space. The temperature at this height is around minus 60C so there is not as much energy to be converted into radiation.

The difference in the amount of 15 micron radiation produced at the 15C surface, and the amount produced at the -60C emission height, is the amount of energy being stored in the atmosphere.

You are missing an upper tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result of CO2 having the magical powers you attribute to it...no hot spot...no magic...your hypothesis is a failure...try looking to the real world and the actual observed, measured, empirical evidence which points to the absorption of IR by CO2 having no coherent relationship with warming in the atmosphere.

The predicted hotspot is a function of the water cycle not CO2. The fact that it has not appeared in the predicted magnitude is evidence that the climate models are missing some important factors in their calculation of feedbacks.

The hotspot for CO2 would be centred on 2 meters from the surface, the mean free path of a surface emitted 15 micron photon. The fact that 'surface temperature' is actually air temperature measured at 1.5 metres confounds finding it.

 

[IanC]

Of course I see no reason to believe this set of papers are the 'truth' and others are 'lies'. There is a very large probability that all climate science papers are wrong, at least to some degree.

Sorry they don't jibe with your dogma.

I don't have a dogma. That is why I am skeptical of papers from both sides of the issue.

 

[SSDD]

The predicted hotspot is a function of the water cycle not CO2. The fact that it has not appeared in the predicted magnitude is evidence that the climate models are missing some important factors in their calculation of feedbacks.

The hot spot is a function of the water cycle that is supposed to be aggravated by CO2...denying that the hot spot is supposed to emerge with increasing atmospheric CO2 is just as bad as the alarmist bullshit spewed by the AGW zealots on this board....face it, your interpretation of physics is flawed and the observational evidence proves it...were your beliefs correct, the upper tropospheric hot spot would be right were it was predicted and we wouldn't be having this conversation because I would be in agreement with you since the evidence would be there for all to see.

 

[SSDD]

Of course I see no reason to believe this set of papers are the 'truth' and others are 'lies'. There is a very large probability that all climate science papers are wrong, at least to some degree.

Sorry they don't jibe with your dogma.

I don't have a dogma. That is why I am skeptical of papers from both sides of the issue.

Of course you do...you believe that energy moves from cool to warm even though it can never be demonstrated or measured...you believe it because an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model says so and you are perfectly willing to engage in fraudulent bad math in an effort to convince others. You have dogma in spades.

 

[IanC]

The predicted hotspot is a function of the water cycle not CO2. The fact that it has not appeared in the predicted magnitude is evidence that the climate models are missing some important factors in their calculation of feedbacks.

The hot spot is a function of the water cycle that is supposed to be aggravated by CO2...denying that the hot spot is supposed to emerge with increasing atmospheric CO2 is just as bad as the alarmist bullshit spewed by the AGW zealots on this board....face it, your interpretation of physics is flawed and the observational evidence proves it...were your beliefs correct, the upper tropospheric hot spot would be right were it was predicted and we wouldn't be having this conversation because I would be in agreement with you since the evidence would be there for all to see.

Roughly five years ago I was one of the first here to point out and discuss the hotspot failure. It fails because the climate models are not capturing the water cycle correctly.

I have given several reasons for this. An extra watt of IR does not have the same ability to evaporate water as does an extra watt of solar. The Iris Effect short-circuits evaporation. The coefficient of evaporation that the models use is different than the accepted value.

I tried to get people to read JoNova's thorough explanation of the process a few years ago, with little success or interest.

I pointed out some of the misdirections that RealClimate were using when Schmidt and Mann came to the defense of the hotspot by deflecting to stratospheric cooling. Again, to deafening silence.

Yahoos like you have no understanding of the hotspot other than to use it as a talking point. I am more than willing to discuss the hotspot. But first you have to show some basic knowledge about the subject.

 

[IanC]

Of course I see no reason to believe this set of papers are the 'truth' and others are 'lies'. There is a very large probability that all climate science papers are wrong, at least to some degree.

Sorry they don't jibe with your dogma.

I don't have a dogma. That is why I am skeptical of papers from both sides of the issue.

Of course you do...you believe that energy moves from cool to warm even though it can never be demonstrated or measured...you believe it because an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model says so and you are perfectly willing to engage in fraudulent bad math in an effort to convince others. You have dogma in spades.

You give qualities of matter to light, as shown by your incongruent examples such as air leaking out of a tire. Only one bit of matter can occupy a point in space at one time. Light does not have the same restriction. Electrons can only flow in one direction through a wire, light can move in both directions through an optical fibre.

Photons do not cancel out. Once emitted they exist until they are absorbed by a bit of matter. Millions of experiments have been performed over the last few hundred years to discover the properties of light, often with very unusual results. You reject this data, I don't. You reject the explanations given for the results even though the predictions have led to spectacular discoveries and technology.

 

[SSDD]

Roughly five years ago I was one of the first here to point out and discuss the hotspot failure. It fails because the climate models are not capturing the water cycle correctly.

And shortly afterwards, you decided that the hot spot must be just above the surface...otherwise, your belief system would be challenged and you can't have that...can you?

 

[SSDD]

Of course I see no reason to believe this set of papers are the 'truth' and others are 'lies'. There is a very large probability that all climate science papers are wrong, at least to some degree.

Sorry they don't jibe with your dogma.

I don't have a dogma. That is why I am skeptical of papers from both sides of the issue.

Of course you do...you believe that energy moves from cool to warm even though it can never be demonstrated or measured...you believe it because an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model says so and you are perfectly willing to engage in fraudulent bad math in an effort to convince others. You have dogma in spades.

You give qualities of matter to light, as shown by your incongruent examples such as air leaking out of a tire. Only one bit of matter can occupy a point in space at one time. Light does not have the same restriction. Electrons can only flow in one direction through a wire, light can move in both directions through an optical fibre.

Photons do not cancel out. Once emitted they exist until they are absorbed by a bit of matter. Millions of experiments have been performed over the last few hundred years to discover the properties of light, often with very unusual results. You reject this data, I don't. You reject the explanations given for the results even though the predictions have led to spectacular discoveries and technology.

The second law of thermodynamics applies equally to everything..no exemptions....energy does not move up hill...entropy always increases.

 

[IanC]

The second law of thermodynamics applies equally to everything..no exemptions....energy does not move up hill...entropy always increases

The two way flow happens simultaneously, while you can calculate how much energy is going in either direction you cannot separate the flows and say heat is going in both directions.

Entropy is the main reason why your version is wrong. You are saying radiation is throttled down from the warm object and is non-existent in the cooler one. That is a decrease in entropy compared to full flows in both directions and the ensuring exchange of momentum. Eg two objects in a cold environment would be pushed together by an inbalance of momentum acting outwards but not between the two objects.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… « FOX News Weather Blog

December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around...
Good morning everyone. Happy Wednesday!

It’s a bitter cold midweek with windchills in the single digits and teens for millions this morning across the Great Lakes, Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic over the next few days.

So lets try this again.

Back in 2000 Al Gore said that the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years if the United States didn't do something about it. The Earth is still here.
Back in 2006 Al Gore produced an Inconvenient Truth predicting increased in Cat 5 hurricanes each year, massive tornado's, very little snow events, and warming to the point the Earth would burn up in 10 years. Guess what, less hurricanes each year, little tornado activities, lots of snow through polar vortexes, and the Earth is still here.
So with Global Warming year after year, because of the increase of CO2 each year, (liberal's words not mine) if last 2 years the temperature around Manassas has been in the high 30s and low 40s, WITH THE INCREASE OF TEMPERATURE YEAR AFTER YEAR....Where did the 20 degree temperature come from. What you morons don't understand is that your science says "each year with CO2 on the increase, the temperature will increase", yet is is 15 degrees lower...And don't give me shit that it is only weather... Yeah and when the summer is HOT , it is only weather.

Yes, it is "only weather". You seem to have less understanding of this topic than a 5th grader. No really, i mean that .... my 5th grade daughter learned, in class, that you can still have some very cold weather (even local record low temps) on a globe that is warming overall. You would literally fail a 5th grade science test. Damn man, get some self-respect!

 

[SSDD]

\

The two way flow happens simultaneously, while you can calculate how much energy is going in either direction you cannot separate the flows and say heat is going in both directions.

Sorry ian...that is model output...not observation. If you don't have anything but unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models, just say that you have nothing...relying on models when their results can be tested and verified in reality is one thing...relying on them when reality highlights the fact that the results they give you are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable is just stupid. From this point forward..if all you have is model results, then just keep them to yourself..unless of course, you can provide some observation and measurement out here in the real world to back them up.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, it is "only weather". You seem to have less understanding of this topic than a 5th grader. No really, i mean that .... my 5th grade daughter learned, in class, that you can still have some very cold weather (even local record low temps) on a globe that is warming overall. You would literally fail a 5th grade science test. Damn man, get some self-respect!

Sorry guy, but alas, it is you who seems to have less understanding of the topic than a 5th grader. You clearly believe the AGW hypothesis is correct, and yet, you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports that hypothesis over natural variability.....nor can you provide any actual observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Most 5th graders that I have spoken to are naturally skeptical and might question belief in such things without the first bit of observed, measured evidence.

Got any actual data to support your beliefs, or have you been dumbed down to the point that you simply believe what people you perceive as smarter than you tell you to believe?

 

[SSDD]

Why am I not surprised in the least that fort fun is not coming forward with that single shred of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...or a single piece of observed data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why am I not surprised in the least that fort fun is not coming forward with that single shred of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...or a single piece of observed data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

Because , dumb ass, neither Fort Fun nor anyone else has to prove to some uneducated fraud the truth of any scientifoc theory on an internet message board. The forums where these things are argued exist, and you are neither qualified nor invited to emgage in any of them. I am simply making fun of you , because you are a charlatan.

 

[SSDD]

Because , dumb ass, neither Fort Fun nor anyone else has to prove to some uneducated fraud the truth of any scientifoc theory on an internet message board. The forums where these things are argued exist, and you are neither qualified nor invited to emgage in any of them. I am simply making fun of you , because you are a charlatan.

Completely unsurprising....name calling, logical fallacy, and outright lies. What else could you do? Since no such data exist, it was either that, or acknowledge that your positon is an act of faith without the first piece of actual data in support. And alas, since your positon is one of faith, not science, I am afraid that it is you who is unqualified to discuss the topic....and the question was asked to make fun of you...since we all knew that no such data would be forthcoming from you. And since you clearly believe such data exists but can't seem to come up with even the first shred, it is clearly you who is the charlatan. But feel free to step on up to the plate Susie and slap me down with the very sort of data I am asking for...or don't and just prove that I am right about you.