"only"

[Old Rocks]

According to the UAH, 2014 is 'only' the third warmest year on record.

Annual Global Temperature Anomalies, ranked

1. 1998 0.42
2. 2010 0.40
3. 2014 0.27
4. 2005 0.26
5. 2013 0.24
6. 2002 0.22
7. 2009 0.21
8. 2007 0.20
9. 2003 0.19
10. 2006 0.19
11. 2012 0.17
12. 2011 0.13
13. 2004 0.11
14. 2001 0.11
15. 1991 0.02
16. 1987 0.01
17. 1995 0.01
18. 1988 0.01
19. 1980 -0.01
20. 2008 -0.01

Of the last 20 years, 16 have been the warmest years on record. Note that in this list of the warmest 20 years on record, the earliest is 1980. 2015 will be a very interesting year.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scorching 2014 sees records tumble in 19 European countries ANU

By Sophie Lewis, Australian National University; Andrew King, University of Melbourne and David Karoly, University of Melbourne.

It’s clear: 2014 has been a scorcher. As well as probably being the hottest year on record globally, regional and local climate records have tumbled too.

Australia recently had its hottest spring on record, beating the previous record set only last year. Human influences on the climate very likely played a significant role in this event, just as they have globally.
2014 was a scorcher across almost all of Europe. Temperatures are shown relative to the long-term average for 1981-2010.Climate Central/ECMWF, Author provided

Average yearly temperatures across the whole continent show that 2014 is the hottest year so far in a decades-long upward trend.





It has been warm.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Old crock spouting his ADJUSTED DATA and fear-mongering when the real range according to RSS (satellite records)and USCRN (Superior ground based recording) ranking is 24th of the last 35 years... I wonder who is lying? Old Crock or the unaltered records?

 

[Billy_Bob]

"ONLY" a bunch of BULL SHIT from Old Crock...

He would have us ignore that we have passed the top of a sine wave and are now into the cooling phase which could last as long as 600 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to the UAH, 2014 is 'only' the third warmest year on record.

Annual Global Temperature Anomalies, ranked

1. 1998 0.42
2. 2010 0.40
3. 2014 0.27
4. 2005 0.26
5. 2013 0.24
6. 2002 0.22
7. 2009 0.21
8. 2007 0.20
9. 2003 0.19
10. 2006 0.19
11. 2012 0.17
12. 2011 0.13
13. 2004 0.11
14. 2001 0.11
15. 1991 0.02
16. 1987 0.01
17. 1995 0.01
18. 1988 0.01
19. 1980 -0.01
20. 2008 -0.01

Of the last 20 years, 16 have been the warmest years on record. Note that in this list of the warmest 20 years on record, the earliest is 1980. 2015 will be a very interesting year.

You didn't respond on the other thread, so I'll repost the thoughts of an acquaintance from another forum.
If you can see any flaw in his reasoning why CO2 isn't going to cause runaway global warming, feel free to respond. Or runaway?

What is the current power at the earth's surface, as an average?

1. Power at the earth's surface is about 500 watts per square meter, by NASA estimates from a detailed power budget.

What average temperature does it presently maintain?

2. That power suffices to maintain an average temperature of 291 degrees kelvin (18C).

What physical law governs the relationship between power and temperature?

3. The Stefan Boltzmann radiation law governs the relationship between power and temperature, and specifies that the power emitted by a radiating black body is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature (degrees kelvin).
Exactly how much power is required to raise the surface temperature by 1 degree C? Show your reasoning.

4. By 2, an increase in mean surface temperature of 1C is a 292/291 change in the absolute temperature. By 3, that requires a (292/291)^4 increase in the total power, or a 1.38% increase in the total power. By 1, that requires 7 watts per square meter, continually operating.

What is the power estimated to be supplied by CO2 greenhouse currently?

5. The power presently provided by direct CO2 greenhouse is 1.6 watts per square meter, by IPCC's own estimates.

What mathematical function describes the relationship between a given gas concentration and the greenhouse power it can supply, and why?

6. The mathematical relationship between CO2 concentration and greenhouse power is a logarithmic function of the atmospheric concentration. This happens because the specific wavelengths intercepted by CO2 get saturated as that concentration rises, so the first bit has the largest effect, subsequent additions have less, and so on.
What is an upper bound for the power that would be supplied by doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration?


7. An upper bound for the power supplied directly by doubling CO2 concentration is log 2 times the effect of the present concentration, by 6. By 5, that effect is 1.6 watts per square meter so the bound on the direct effect is 0.693 x 1.6 = 1.11 additional watts per square meter. Notice, this is less than 1/6th the figure calculated above as necessary to raise mean surface temperature by 1C.

If that much power is supplied to the top of a water column 3 km deep at a starting temperature of 15C, what are the dynamics of the temperature at the top of the column? At the bottom of the column? (Bounds are acceptable).


8. If 1.1 watts if new power are supplied at the top of a water column 3 km deep, the temperature of the column will begin to rise, as 1.1 joules per second (definition of watt) enter the water as heat. The heat capacity of water is 4180 joules per kilogram per degree kelvin. The mass of water is 1000 kilograms per cubic meter. A 3 km deep column has a mass (under each surface meter) of 3 million kg and a heat capacity of 1.254x10^10 joules per degree. If the column were well mixed, it would take 9,543 years for the temperature to rise one degree, ignoring for a moment the restoring force of the higher temperature. Just the top 100 meters of the water column have a heat capacity one thirtieth part of that, implying an instantaneous rate of increase in temperature of one part in 318th of one degree per year.

For what length of time will the dynamics continue before approximating a steady state?

9. By the reasoning above, 1.1 watts on a 500 base are a change in the total power of 1.1/500, and in the equilibrium temperature of (501.1/500)^.25 or 0.00055 of the initial absolute temperature, or 0.16 degree. The temperature cannot rise more than that at the top of the column, because as soon as the top of the column gas warmed that much, its surface is reradiating as much additional power as the new forcing supplied, putting it back into equilibrium. This will take approximately 100 years for the top 100 meters, ignoring for now the slower diffusion of heat to lower layers of the water column. That 100 comes from the 318 years per degree figure above, averaged with zero at the end of the period, and a total temperature change if 0.16 degree.

What mathematical form or shape will the temperature series describe in the meantime?

10. The temperature will describe a slowing curve, max rate at the start, falling smoothly to zero as the reradiation term rises with the temperature of the surface.

Does it reach a steady state, and if so at what value?


11. After that century long, 0.16 degree transient, it will still take millenia or the higher temperature at the top of the water column to reach thermal equilibrium with the deeper layers, which have 30 times the heat capacity, and will load with joules slower, as the hotter surface is already reradiating most of the new incoming power.
The very long run steady state is 0.16 degree hotter throughout the entire column, but will not be reached for thousands of years.

I didn't have to look up anything to give those answers. It is enough to know any physics and think through the problem for yourself.

The 3-5C warming prediction requires 21.1 to 35.5 watts per square meter of new, continually operating power. The larger figure is equivalent to moving the earth's orbit nearer to the sun by over 3 million miles. It is also 32 times the power anyone can expect directly from CO2 greenhouse from doubling its atmospheric concentration. To raise the surface temperature even 1 degree C by direct CO2 greenhouse would require a 31 fold increase in its atmospheric concentration, by the log formula. In reality those wavelengths would be saturated and opaque from below well before such an increase.

They don't have a power budget and cannot tell any of us who know the actual physics where they expect the other 20 to 35 watts per square meter of power to come from. They just wave their hands and say climate sensitivity. Every actual power source they have proposed has been checked, and they have random signs (as many negative as positive), and all are an order of magnitude too small to account for 3-5C warming.

Then the huge warming they predicted fails to appear, and they are surprised. People who asked where the power supposedly was to come from are not surprised.

Then all hide behind lawyer phrases, dodging the hopeless miss on the basic scale of the effect. Yes there is slight warming, in the record and in the reasoning. Yes the CO2 component of that warming is plausibly man made. But it is also less than a degree in direct effect. "Well, reasonable people can disagree about how much, the important thing is that it is happening etc". No. The important thing is the amount, which is nothing to worry about, on all empirical evidence and all actually scientific reasoning.

 

[Old Rocks]

Todd;
I didn't have to look up anything to give those answers. It is enough to know any physics and think through the problem for yourself.
.........................................................................................................

Todd, you are a liar. You do not know enough physics to answer all those questions off the top of your head. Nor do I. But the people at MIT, Caltech, Woods Hole, and Scripps do. And they all say that we will be seeing increasing heat, and increasing effects from that heat. I'll go with what they state, rather than what an ananomous poster on the internet claims.

And the CO2 does not work in the manner that you stated. If you really wish to learn how it works, it is presented in this paper from the American Institute of Physics, a far better referance than a poster on the internet.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Billy_Bob]

Todd;
I didn't have to look up anything to give those answers. It is enough to know any physics and think through the problem for yourself.
.........................................................................................................

Todd, you are a liar. You do not know enough physics to answer all those questions off the top of your head. Nor do I. But the people at MIT, Caltech, Woods Hole, and Scripps do. And they all say that we will be seeing increasing heat, and increasing effects from that heat. I'll go with what they state, rather than what an ananomous poster on the internet claims.

And the CO2 does not work in the manner that you stated. If you really wish to learn how it works, it is presented in this paper from the American Institute of Physics, a far better referance than a poster on the internet.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The theroy you tout has been discredited as false. No need to discredit it again. regurgitating failed models and failed predictions does not make them true.

 

[Old Rocks]

Links, Billy Boob, links. Your useless flapyap means nothing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd;
I didn't have to look up anything to give those answers. It is enough to know any physics and think through the problem for yourself.
.........................................................................................................

Todd, you are a liar. You do not know enough physics to answer all those questions off the top of your head. Nor do I. But the people at MIT, Caltech, Woods Hole, and Scripps do. And they all say that we will be seeing increasing heat, and increasing effects from that heat. I'll go with what they state, rather than what an ananomous poster on the internet claims.

And the CO2 does not work in the manner that you stated. If you really wish to learn how it works, it is presented in this paper from the American Institute of Physics, a far better referance than a poster on the internet.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Todd;
I didn't have to look up anything to give those answers. It is enough to know any physics and think through the problem for yourself.

This wasn't me, still the guy from the other forum.

Russian Roulette Taxpayers Could Be On The Hook For Trillions In Oil Derivatives Seeking Alpha

You were unable to find any errors in his logic?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Todd;
I didn't have to look up anything to give those answers. It is enough to know any physics and think through the problem for yourself.
.........................................................................................................

Todd, you are a liar. You do not know enough physics to answer all those questions off the top of your head. Nor do I. But the people at MIT, Caltech, Woods Hole, and Scripps do. And they all say that we will be seeing increasing heat, and increasing effects from that heat. I'll go with what they state, rather than what an ananomous poster on the internet claims.

And the CO2 does not work in the manner that you stated. If you really wish to learn how it works, it is presented in this paper from the American Institute of Physics, a far better referance than a poster on the internet.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Most ignorant response ever

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Rocks, for a "Scientist", is totally opposed to reading anything outside of his Cult's approved materials.

Is that science or a cult?

 

[jc456]

Rocks, for a "Scientist", is totally opposed to reading anything outside of his Cult's approved materials.

Is that science or a cult?

drum roll please........................Cult

 

[mamooth]

The Jonestown cult and the denier cult now show many similarities.

Claims that the media and government are plotting against them.

Requirements to only look at cult-approved sources.

Claims that refusal to believe crazy cult sources prove bias and oppression.

Seeing themselves as the few remaining pure ones.

Defining any criticism of the cult as part of the conspiracy against the cult.

The next stage will probably be for them to physically remove themselves from the outside world. They'll build a shantytown somewhere, and gather every morning to hear the words of their sacred spiritual leaders.

 

[jc456]

The Jonestown cult and the denier cult now show many similarities.

Claims that the media and government are plotting against them.

Requirements to only look at cult-approved sources.

Claims that refusal to believe crazy cult sources prove bias and oppression.

Seeing themselves as the few remaining pure ones.

Defining any criticism of the cult as part of the conspiracy against the cult.

The next stage will probably be for them to physically remove themselves from the outside world. They'll build a shantytown somewhere, and gather every morning to hear the words of their sacred spiritual leaders.

figures you'd know how the Jonestown cult worked. You were preparing for your journey into the cult of climate. Needed experience eh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Jonestown cult and the denier cult now show many similarities.

Claims that the media and government are plotting against them.

Requirements to only look at cult-approved sources.

Claims that refusal to believe crazy cult sources prove bias and oppression.

Seeing themselves as the few remaining pure ones.

Defining any criticism of the cult as part of the conspiracy against the cult.

The next stage will probably be for them to physically remove themselves from the outside world. They'll build a shantytown somewhere, and gather every morning to hear the words of their sacred spiritual leaders.

Any flaws you can spot in post #5?

Let me know if you need any help with the math.

 

[Old Rocks]

Many. The primary on has to do with how CO2 works. From the American Institute of Physics

Simple Models of Climate

=> Radiation math

That’s a shorthand way of explaining the greenhouse effect — seeing it from below, from "inside" the atmosphere. Unfortunately, shorthand arguments can be misleading if you push them too far. Fourier, Tyndall and most other scientists for nearly a century used this approach, looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. So they tended to think of the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the "greenhouse" analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works, if you look at the process in detail.
What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.) The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get warmer and radiate out more energy. As in Tyndall's analogy of a dam on a river, the barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Many. The primary on has to do with how CO2 works. From the American Institute of Physics

Simple Models of Climate

=> Radiation math

That’s a shorthand way of explaining the greenhouse effect — seeing it from below, from "inside" the atmosphere. Unfortunately, shorthand arguments can be misleading if you push them too far. Fourier, Tyndall and most other scientists for nearly a century used this approach, looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. So they tended to think of the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the "greenhouse" analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works, if you look at the process in detail.
What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.) The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get warmer and radiate out more energy. As in Tyndall's analogy of a dam on a river, the barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in.

What crap! According to the AGW Cult, the CO2 molecule absorbs the energy, then redirects it into the deep Pacific Ocean where it is both heated and acidfied.

Can you pick a fucking story and stick to it?

BTW, still no warming for 2 decades

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Many. The primary on has to do with how CO2 works. From the American Institute of Physics

Simple Models of Climate

=> Radiation math

That’s a shorthand way of explaining the greenhouse effect — seeing it from below, from "inside" the atmosphere. Unfortunately, shorthand arguments can be misleading if you push them too far. Fourier, Tyndall and most other scientists for nearly a century used this approach, looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. So they tended to think of the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the "greenhouse" analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works, if you look at the process in detail.
What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.) The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get warmer and radiate out more energy. As in Tyndall's analogy of a dam on a river, the barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in.

Many.

But you haven't named any.

The primary on has to do with how CO2 works.

Which part of his post do you feel gets anything wrong about "how CO2 works"?

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well.

Higher layers have more surface area and would radiate more. So?

The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation)

And to raise temps 1 degree, we'd have to take in 7 more watts, or emit 7 fewer watts, per square meter at the Earth's surface.

 

[IanC]

Many. The primary on has to do with how CO2 works. From the American Institute of Physics

Simple Models of Climate

=> Radiation math

That’s a shorthand way of explaining the greenhouse effect — seeing it from below, from "inside" the atmosphere. Unfortunately, shorthand arguments can be misleading if you push them too far. Fourier, Tyndall and most other scientists for nearly a century used this approach, looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. So they tended to think of the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the "greenhouse" analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works, if you look at the process in detail.
What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.) The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get warmer and radiate out more energy. As in Tyndall's analogy of a dam on a river, the barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in.

Old Rocks- you shouldn't plagiarize other people's words. For a moment I actually thought you were putting together a somewhat cogent statement.

 

[mamooth]

Can you pick a fucking story and stick to it?

Most of the deniers here display some form of mental illness or personality disorder.

1. Histrionic personality disorder (attention seeking and extreme emotionalism)

2. Paranoia. (The world is conspiring against us!)

3. Narcissism. (I am incapable of error and know better than the best minds on the planet!)

4. Sociopathy (Lying for my cult is justified!)

Frank scores very high in #1 and #4.