"Holy crap it's cold today. D*mn global warming"

[westwall]

Like I said before, I only know the window of time I live in. Anecdotally, I know, had that hammered in my head....I have seen the climate change from wet to dry, warm to hot. I am not polluted by politics or profit either. Facts drive me. Truth. I have nothing to gain from this.

And yet you wish to impose rules on the people who live here, based on watching 1 minute of a two hour movie. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you?

I don't impose anything. What are you referring to? I am talking about lifelong experiences, not Al Gore propaganda groupthink. Just reality.

Your tacit approval of the goals of the IPCC for one. And ALL of the global warming silliness is nothing more than groupthink. There's no science to back up one bit of it.

 

[westwall]

If I was a thousand years old and had a bigger snapshot of history, I might have a better reference. Nobody has that luxury. We see things through our own filters. But in my brief 57 years on the planet, it has been getting drier and warmer. Not to mention overcrowded. Vastly overcrowded. I don't think that that's a coincidence.

The world doesn't care how short your life is though Mary. That's the point. The Earth operates on time scales far longer than you can imagine. As far as the overcrowding issue go's, it simply isn't true. You can fit every human being alive into the state of Rhode Island.

Hell termites outweigh us by ten times.

Overcrowding? Not by a long shot.

Overpopulation. Yes. 7 billion people. We are extinguishing species of animals every year. Sad but true. I am an amateur astronomer, I see were it takes millions of light years for the light of one star to reach our eyes. Deep Time, billions and billions of years is a fleeting thing. It is hard to believe that we humans ARE NOT affecting the climate, and even harder to believe someone can't grasp that...

Hard to believe and yet factual. The truth is the overwhelming majority of those 7 billion live in bronze age conditions. Figure 5 billion have no impact on anything except their local area. That's just a reality of life in the third world. That leaves 2 billion who live in first world or nearly so conditions. We enjoy electricity and vehicles, telephones etc. We do indeed have a affect on the Earth. In some places it is terrible.

But on a global scale? No way in hell. The Earth is so huge compared to us it is laughable. Some like to compare us to viruses, and to those I would say then end your life if you feel so strongly about that. But the truth is more than 99% of all creatures have gone extinct long before we ever showed up.

Are we driving other critters to extinction? Absolutely. Poachers the world over are hunting animals to extinction and the world sits back and does nothing about real world problems that we actually COULD halt.

76 trillion dollars is what the IPCC says we need to spend and the result of that enormous expenditure would be to lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years......maybe. The best frauds are those that don't get detected until the perps are long dead. 100 years seems like pretty good insurance...don't you think?

These are all the same failed arguments you people made about CFCs and tobacco. If you don't believe that cutting down 80% of the worlds old growth forests have impacted the planet in a dozen ways, you are deluding yourself, and certainly not worthy of the PhD in Earth Science you claim to possess.

There you go lumping me in with everyone else. That's group think. That's your schtick. Not mine. I'm an independent.

 

[orogenicman]

Like I said before, I only know the window of time I live in. Anecdotally, I know, had that hammered in my head....I have seen the climate change from wet to dry, warm to hot. I am not polluted by politics or profit either. Facts drive me. Truth. I have nothing to gain from this.

And yet you wish to impose rules on the people who live here, based on watching 1 minute of a two hour movie. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you?

I don't impose anything. What are you referring to? I am talking about lifelong experiences, not Al Gore propaganda groupthink. Just reality.

Your tacit approval of the goals of the IPCC for one. And ALL of the global warming silliness is nothing more than groupthink. There's no science to back up one bit of it.

Do go to Antarctica and tell the scientists working done there that you've managed to figure it all out without ever working up a sweat. I'm certain by the end of the day you will be living in the cages with the dogs.

 

[mamooth]

No, that was SSDD's schtick. I'm not talking about disappearing energy. I am talking about the very real fact that long wave IR can not physically do what you all claim. It's simply impossible.

Your graph below is inaccurate and incomplete. It doesn't show that near the surface skin, water temperature drops again sharply because air temperature is lower than ocean temperature, and heat is flowing out of the water into the air.

Longwave radiation goes into that skin zone. It warms the water there. That makes the thermal gradient in the skin less steep, so less heat flows out of the ocean. More heat stays in the ocean, oceans warm. By warming the skin, the IR blocks heat below from flowing out, and the oceans warm.

And, most importantly, conservation of energy is maintained.

Can long wave IR warm water? Yes, very, very slowly. However, the temperature coefficient of water pretty much wipes it out.

Problem two, can the warmer water penetrate deeper into the body of water to warm it? Nope. Warm water rises to the top. Remember that? So, even with thermal mixing due to wind and current, the warm water stays on top.

UV radiation on the other hand can get below wind mixed level and warm the water at depth. That DOES warm the bodies of water. But, as the graph below shows, that temperature drop occurs very, very rapidly.

 

[westwall]

No, that was SSDD's schtick. I'm not talking about disappearing energy. I am talking about the very real fact that long wave IR can not physically do what you all claim. It's simply impossible.

Your graph below is inaccurate and incomplete. It doesn't show that near the surface skin, water temperature drops again sharply because air temperature is lower than ocean temperature, and heat is flowing out of the water into the air.

Longwave radiation goes into that skin zone. It warms the water there. That makes the thermal gradient in the skin less steep, so less heat flows out of the ocean. More heat stays in the ocean, oceans warm. By warming the skin, the IR blocks heat below from flowing out, and the oceans warm.

And, most importantly, conservation of energy is maintained.

Can long wave IR warm water? Yes, very, very slowly. However, the temperature coefficient of water pretty much wipes it out.

Problem two, can the warmer water penetrate deeper into the body of water to warm it? Nope. Warm water rises to the top. Remember that? So, even with thermal mixing due to wind and current, the warm water stays on top.

UV radiation on the other hand can get below wind mixed level and warm the water at depth. That DOES warm the bodies of water. But, as the graph below shows, that temperature drop occurs very, very rapidly.

It doesn't show the skin because of the scale. But all the rest of what you say, to a point is accurate. The warming the deep water is where your assertions fail. IR can't warm water below a meter at best. That's with all the wind mixing and everything that that entails. Period.

In other words, the oceans are warmed by UV, and not IR which means the AGW claims are false.

 

[mamooth]

It doesn't show the skin because of the scale. But all the rest of what you say, to a point is accurate. The warming the deep water is where your assertions fail. IR can't warm water below a meter at best. That's with all the wind mixing and everything that that entails. Period.

In other words, the oceans are warmed by UV, and not IR which means the AGW claims are false.

Semantic games. If the absorbed IR stops the heat lower down from leaking out into the atmosphere, and it does, it effectively warms the oceans.

Which means AGW theory is fine, and your claims have problems.

 

[ChrisL]

It was cooler than usual today in New England too, but this is how spring in New England is normally. No big deal.

 

[westwall]

It doesn't show the skin because of the scale. But all the rest of what you say, to a point is accurate. The warming the deep water is where your assertions fail. IR can't warm water below a meter at best. That's with all the wind mixing and everything that that entails. Period.

In other words, the oceans are warmed by UV, and not IR which means the AGW claims are false.

Semantic games. If the absorbed IR stops the heat lower down from leaking out into the atmosphere, and it does, it effectively warms the oceans.

Which means AGW theory is fine, and your claims have problems.

No semantics at all. Long wave IR simply can't penetrate deep enough into water to warm anything more than the bare surface. That then rapidly cools with the atmosphere.

 

[orogenicman]

It doesn't show the skin because of the scale. But all the rest of what you say, to a point is accurate. The warming the deep water is where your assertions fail. IR can't warm water below a meter at best. That's with all the wind mixing and everything that that entails. Period.

In other words, the oceans are warmed by UV, and not IR which means the AGW claims are false.

Semantic games. If the absorbed IR stops the heat lower down from leaking out into the atmosphere, and it does, it effectively warms the oceans.

Which means AGW theory is fine, and your claims have problems.

No semantics at all. Long wave IR simply can't penetrate deep enough into water to warm anything more than the bare surface. That then rapidly cools with the atmosphere.

But it can warm the surface very effectively; and the thermal conductivity of water along with ocean convection does the rest.

 

[ChrisL]

It doesn't show the skin because of the scale. But all the rest of what you say, to a point is accurate. The warming the deep water is where your assertions fail. IR can't warm water below a meter at best. That's with all the wind mixing and everything that that entails. Period.

In other words, the oceans are warmed by UV, and not IR which means the AGW claims are false.

Semantic games. If the absorbed IR stops the heat lower down from leaking out into the atmosphere, and it does, it effectively warms the oceans.

Which means AGW theory is fine, and your claims have problems.

No semantics at all. Long wave IR simply can't penetrate deep enough into water to warm anything more than the bare surface. That then rapidly cools with the atmosphere.

But it can warm the surface very effectively; and the thermal conductivity of water along with ocean convection does the rest.

So, do you think that "carbon credits" is going to help this? And what about China and other countries that refuse to comply or cannot for whatever reasons?

What do you suggest we do about those problems?

 

[westwall]

It doesn't show the skin because of the scale. But all the rest of what you say, to a point is accurate. The warming the deep water is where your assertions fail. IR can't warm water below a meter at best. That's with all the wind mixing and everything that that entails. Period.

In other words, the oceans are warmed by UV, and not IR which means the AGW claims are false.

Semantic games. If the absorbed IR stops the heat lower down from leaking out into the atmosphere, and it does, it effectively warms the oceans.

Which means AGW theory is fine, and your claims have problems.

No semantics at all. Long wave IR simply can't penetrate deep enough into water to warm anything more than the bare surface. That then rapidly cools with the atmosphere.

But it can warm the surface very effectively; and the thermal conductivity of water along with ocean convection does the rest.

I guess you forgot the fact that warm water rises. That escaped you huh?

 

[orogenicman]

It doesn't show the skin because of the scale. But all the rest of what you say, to a point is accurate. The warming the deep water is where your assertions fail. IR can't warm water below a meter at best. That's with all the wind mixing and everything that that entails. Period.

In other words, the oceans are warmed by UV, and not IR which means the AGW claims are false.

Semantic games. If the absorbed IR stops the heat lower down from leaking out into the atmosphere, and it does, it effectively warms the oceans.

Which means AGW theory is fine, and your claims have problems.

No semantics at all. Long wave IR simply can't penetrate deep enough into water to warm anything more than the bare surface. That then rapidly cools with the atmosphere.

But it can warm the surface very effectively; and the thermal conductivity of water along with ocean convection does the rest.

So, do you think that "carbon credits" is going to help this? And what about China and other countries that refuse to comply or cannot for whatever reasons?

What do you suggest we do about those problems?

First of all, nothing is going to be done unless people agree to sit down and figure out what to do. Secondly, China has already agreed to clean up their act, and have already started compliance work. It isn't as much as we'd hoped for, but the Chinese themselves understand they have a problem because their own people are dying from the pollution.

 

[orogenicman]

It doesn't show the skin because of the scale. But all the rest of what you say, to a point is accurate. The warming the deep water is where your assertions fail. IR can't warm water below a meter at best. That's with all the wind mixing and everything that that entails. Period.

In other words, the oceans are warmed by UV, and not IR which means the AGW claims are false.

Semantic games. If the absorbed IR stops the heat lower down from leaking out into the atmosphere, and it does, it effectively warms the oceans.

Which means AGW theory is fine, and your claims have problems.

No semantics at all. Long wave IR simply can't penetrate deep enough into water to warm anything more than the bare surface. That then rapidly cools with the atmosphere.

But it can warm the surface very effectively; and the thermal conductivity of water along with ocean convection does the rest.

I guess you forgot the fact that warm water rises. That escaped you huh?

And when it can't rise any more, what do you think happens? It expands, raising sea levels, and spreads out, etc. The ocean is a very dynamic place. When you add energy to it, things happen.

 

[westwall]

It doesn't show the skin because of the scale. But all the rest of what you say, to a point is accurate. The warming the deep water is where your assertions fail. IR can't warm water below a meter at best. That's with all the wind mixing and everything that that entails. Period.

In other words, the oceans are warmed by UV, and not IR which means the AGW claims are false.

Semantic games. If the absorbed IR stops the heat lower down from leaking out into the atmosphere, and it does, it effectively warms the oceans.

Which means AGW theory is fine, and your claims have problems.

No semantics at all. Long wave IR simply can't penetrate deep enough into water to warm anything more than the bare surface. That then rapidly cools with the atmosphere.

But it can warm the surface very effectively; and the thermal conductivity of water along with ocean convection does the rest.

I guess you forgot the fact that warm water rises. That escaped you huh?

And when it can't rise any more, what do you think happens? It expands, raising sea levels, and spreads out, etc. The ocean is a very dynamic place. When you add energy to it, things happen.

When it can't rise anymore it interacts with the atmosphere which cools it to ambient. That's how physics works.

 

[IanC]

It doesn't show the skin because of the scale. But all the rest of what you say, to a point is accurate. The warming the deep water is where your assertions fail. IR can't warm water below a meter at best. That's with all the wind mixing and everything that that entails. Period.

In other words, the oceans are warmed by UV, and not IR which means the AGW claims are false.

Semantic games. If the absorbed IR stops the heat lower down from leaking out into the atmosphere, and it does, it effectively warms the oceans.

Which means AGW theory is fine, and your claims have problems.

No semantics at all. Long wave IR simply can't penetrate deep enough into water to warm anything more than the bare surface. That then rapidly cools with the atmosphere.

of course it's semantics.

does the atmosphere DIRECTLY heat the oceans? no, IR only penetrates a fraction of a millimeter of the surface. the absorbed energy goes into the pool of energy used to cause evaporation, which then causes convection that carries the latent heat up to the cloud tops.

does the atmosphere INDIRECTLY heat the oceans? yes, by supplying some of the energy necessary for evaporation of water at the boundary less heat is conducted to the surface by conduction. the temperature of water is controlled by both the amount of input and the amount of output. increasing input or decreasing output both cause higher temps, and vice-versa.

 

[bripat9643]

It is intellectually lazy to simply jump on a bandwagon that is based entirely on computer models and ignores real world factual data.

Then get off that denier bandwagon.

2014, Warmest year ever. 2015, even warmer. That's no model.

Stratospheric cooling, outgoing longwave decrease, backradiation increase. No models there.

Can you give us your theory that explains all that directly observed evidence? AGW theory does explain all of the directly observed evidence, therefore it's the accepted science. If you want to change the status quo, you'll need to provide your own theory that explains all the observed evidence. That's how science works. You won't get your theory accepted just by complaining, you have to show how it matches the real world. AGW theory has done that.

Most deniers won't even try to state a theory. Yelling "natural cycles!" is certainly not a theory. Natural cycles have causes. Tell us the specific cause, and show how that theory matches the observed data. That's the #1 reason why deniers are ridiculed. They make it a point of pride to refuse to do any science, but still demand their unsupported assertions be accepted as fact.

And in fact has gone so far as to FALSIFY real world historical data sets to try and hide the fact that the computer models are crap.

No, that's a cult conspiracy theory. And it's the #2 reason why most of the planet holds deniers in such low esteem.

Wrong, asshole:

 

[bripat9643]

If I was a thousand years old and had a bigger snapshot of history, I might have a better reference. Nobody has that luxury. We see things through our own filters. But in my brief 57 years on the planet, it has been getting drier and warmer. Not to mention overcrowded. Vastly overcrowded. I don't think that that's a coincidence.

So that means you can just make stuff up? AGW cult members are worse than creationists when it comes to their understanding of science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dear little twink, no one is making anything up. The glaciers are receding worldwide, the oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, and nine of the ten warmest years have been since 2000. And in my 71 years, Oregon and Washington have become progressively warmer and drier. That is direct personal observation in all parts of both states.

 

[IanC]

Dear little twink, no one is making anything up. The glaciers are receding worldwide, the oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, and nine of the ten warmest years have been since 2000. And in my 71 years, Oregon and Washington have become progressively warmer and drier. That is direct personal observation in all parts of both states.

what is the 'right' temperature? glaciers have been receding for at least 150 years. are you suggesting that the LIA was optimal? most OHC reconstructions show that OHC was much higher in the past and is only now starting to rebound upwards again. what is the 'right' OHC? most interglacial reconstructions show temps were much higher most of the time than the LIA or even the MWP. what temperature should we aim for?

 

[paulitician]

LMAO......ask people who live in the entire northeast this morning about global warming!!Sipping morning coffee with their winter parka's on!! Only the mental cases think it gets people talking about global warming fears!!!

And people wonder why they do these polls about "How concerned are you about global warming?" and people respond they don't care!!!


duh

The Planet Warms, the Planet cools. It happens. There's no reason to panic and allow a massive World Government power-grab. I'd rather take my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman.

I think more & more people are seeing it that way. Fear makes people real stupid and weak. Best to not live in fear. Best to just live and be as happy as possible.