Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change

Are there really people left who still don't realize that global warming (or 'anthropogenic climate change,' since the warming title wasn't looking so good) was completely over-sold and politicized?

You could say the same for the skeptics. They over-sold the "Climategate hoax" and their opposition was totally political, since niether logic nor science is on their side. We know the properties of CO2. We know it's been going up for ~200 years. Given that, how can we expect anything but warming?

The skeptics never tell us where that CO2 is coming from, if not man. So, if AGW believers have "over-sold" their position, it's still doesn't compare to the contortions that the skeptics have had to do to prove their position.

You could say the same for the skeptics. They over-sold the "Climategate hoax" and their opposition was totally political, since niether logic nor science is on their side. We know the properties of CO2. We know it's been going up for ~200 years. Given that, how can we expect anything but warming?

The skeptics never tell us where that CO2 is coming from, if not man. So, if AGW believers have "over-sold" their position, it's still doesn't compare to the contortions that the skeptics have had to do to prove their position.

At midday on Tuesday, the air was still and the sun was high. Dave Visnich sat in the shade outside of the Westward Ho in downtown Phoenix. "I don't know why I bother," Visnich, 51, said. "It's hot in the shade, it's hot in the sun. It's hot. It's hot, hot, hot." And there is no end in sight. A daily record of 113 degrees was tied on Monday.

The high temperature Tuesday set a new record at 114. And today looks like it may be the hottest of all. Temperatures are expected to reach 116 degrees at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, where official measurements are taken. "A persistent, hot, high-pressure system is just sitting over the top of us, and we are baking under it," said Chris Kuhlman of the National Weather Service.

And when might it cool off? "It depends on what you consider cooling off," Kuhlman said. "The pattern is entrenched. It doesn't look like it will change much in the next few days." There will be no real relief until the weekend, when temperatures could tumble into the 109-degree range. And by one measurement, this entire summer could end up on the short list for hottest of all time.

The record for most days of 110 degrees or higher is 32. By the end of this week, if forecasts hold, that mark will have been reached 27 times. The record will be in sight. "I grew up in Mexicali," said Elvira Martinez, 46, seeking shade at a downtown Phoenix park. "But this is hotter, and it never cools off."

MORE

Houston notched its 23rd 100-degree day in a row Tuesday and, alas, the trend is showing no signs of slowing down. Hobby Airport, in southeast Houston, also broke its record for most 100-degree days in a single year on Tuesday, racking up its 14th day. In the short-term, expect little change, and actually a slight warm-up if you can believe that. This is because our air should become a little drier as a result of a more northerly flow, according to the National Weather Service.

Beginning Thursday this should allow temperatures to rise into the low to mid-100s for inland areas and as high as 104 or 105 degrees over the weekend. One slight bonus is the drier air should allow overnight temperatures to fall into the mid-70s for inland areas. Most of August has seen overnight temperatures near 80 degrees.

There remains a slight chance of rain this afternoon and tomorrow afternoon, but I wouldn’t expect it. And then things get dry through the weekend. I know, this is really a sorry way to bring August to a close but it is what it is. You’re frustrated, and the next five days are going to really test your patience.

LONG-RANGE OUTLOOK

To much hostility at skeptical science for me. I have been there and entered into discussions and not enjoyed the exchange at all. I will say that I never had a point disproven, nor did anyone ever point out and then prove a misapplied law of physics. Like I said, I can do the math, but in no way enjoy it. A discussion at skeptical science involves much debunking of mathematical sleight of hand. It just takes to much time and isn't worth the effort because as you said, they are hard core believers and if God himself came down from the sky riding a fiery charriot and told them that they were wrong, they would ask for proof that he was God.

I am not looking for any sort of fame. I am just a guy (and not the only one by the way) who has done the math and seen for myself that the hypotheses put forward by warmists fail at the most fundamental level.

And then there are the all those physicists that just don't know their craft, right, Bent? Since I was a teenager over half a century ago, I have seen people come out with all sorts of fancy math and hypothesis showing relitivity was wrong. And there was a conspriacy among all the scientists to keep them from publisizing their hypothesis.

I see no differance between you and them, Bent. Fancy talk, but no submissions to real science publications.

And then there are the all those physicists that just don't know their craft, right, Bent? Since I was a teenager over half a century ago, I have seen people come out with all sorts of fancy math and hypothesis showing relitivity was wrong. And there was a conspriacy among all the scientists to keep them from publisizing their hypothesis.

I see no differance between you and them, Bent. Fancy talk, but no submissions to real science publications.

And then there are the all those physicists that just don't know their craft, right, Bent? Since I was a teenager over half a century ago, I have seen people come out with all sorts of fancy math and hypothesis showing relitivity was wrong. And there was a conspriacy among all the scientists to keep them from publisizing their hypothesis.

I see no differance between you and them, Bent. Fancy talk, but no submissions to real science publications.

I wouild like for someone to explain how a surface that, is nothing like a perfect reflector and receives only 161 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source can radiate 356 watts per square meter. Explain it within the context of the law of conservation of energy and show me your math.

Then tell me that you believe that you could place any number of reflectors around an electric heater with an output of 1000 watts and increase that output by even one watt. Tell me you believe that by using reflectors around an electric heater that you can get a single joule of energy out of that heater that you don't have to pay the electric company for. Or tell me that you believe that if you put a light bulb inside a sphere such as a mirror, and feed it a watt, or 5 watts of energy, that eventually it will be radiating 1000 watts. If that sort of thing were possible, we could be generating amazing amounts of energy by following the simple formula of confine, wait, and collect.

And if you believe such magic is possible, tell me why we aren't applying such technology today because it would solve all of our energy problems if we could simply use reflectors to multiply energy output.

Conservation of energy is not just a phrase to be tossed about. It actually means something.

I wouild like for someone to explain how a surface that, is nothing like a perfect reflector and receives only 161 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source can radiate 356 watts per square meter. Explain it within the context of the law of conservation of energy and show me your math.

You say 161 watts, but in the diagram I see 494. You apparently forgot to add in the back radiation. Eagerly awaiting your thanks and pos-rep!

Oh some of them know their science. But as Wired said, when you are winning they begin censoring. It is far, far from a level playing field. But then again a level playing field is the worst thing in the world for them.

konradv, we have already been over this and it is clearly way over your head. Even the reading of such a simple graphic apparently. Did I not state clearly enough in my post that I was interested to hear how a surface that only receives 161 watts per square meter from ITS ONLY ENERGY SOURCE?

Backradiation is unphysical, not supported by any of the laws of physcs, and can be proven false by very simple, repeatable, and inexpensive experiment.

Now if you would like to pick up the challenge I initially laid down and explain a mechanism supported by the laws of physics by which the atmosphere (not an energy source) can radiate 333 watts per square meter of IR energy to the surface of the earth, by all means lets hear it. I am all ears. Be sure to explain this mechanism within the context of the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and describe the physical law(s) that predict and support the phenomenon of backradiation; and, oh yes, show your math.

Do you just like being publicly humiliated at my hands?

Bent, you have not publicaly humilated anyone other than yourself. Your claim is that you know physics better than six generations of scientists since the time of Arrnhenius. But you cannot point to a single peer reviewed article in any scientific journal where you have proven this.

Yes, I know. It is an international conspriracy, even extending to Outer Slobovia, to keep the truth hidden.

Hell, you are just another tinfoil hat fellow.