AGW: atmospheric physics

[westwall]

SkS is creating a strawman that does not reflect the skeptical position.

I disagree. I am told here everyday that "it is not warming, it has not warmed since 2010" or whatever the blogs say. The mantra is that temperatures are stable, and thus not rising.

In fact, temperatures are rising, but are rising in waves and plateaus and not in a smooth, even line.

Overall they are indeed rising from the low levels of the Little Ice Age. However, what is normal? If one looks at the history of the planet the "normal" temps are 7 to 10 degrees warmer than the current era. We are in an abnormally cool period of global temperature and have been for the past several million years.

The current global temps have been flat for the last 15 years for sure, and possibly as many as 17 as Pechauri claims. What is no longer in doubt though, is CO2 has zero effect on global temps. Co2 levels have skyrocketed far higher and faster than Hansens worst case scenario and the temps have stabalised and are now appearing to be netering a cooling period.


Thanks to the Sun.

 

[polarbear]

Where's the increased temps.

Wall - you are now below the minimum level at which cany kind of sensible discussion is possible.

Good! I've been trying to sink to your subterranean level for weeks now. Glad to see I have finally found your absurdly low level.

Have you noticed what shows up on your browser as it is loading an environment thread from this forum. I can tell just by the "transferring data from sceptikalscience.com" who has been posting the same usual garbage over and over again...it`s always the same crowd. They read nothing but the same agw freak.org blogs and copy/paste it in here.
Especially these stupid "average temperature" graphs that look like the sales predictions of "Solyndra" & other con artists, when they go public.
Not a single one of these idiots would be able to figure out what the average temperature for Canada would be for today:

And the same goes for "climatologists"
As if anyone could get a valid "global average" with a spatial distribution like that:

So unless one of these "experts" can tell me what the true & statistically correct average temperature for Canada is today from the map above they should shut the fuck up debating with us who`s average is correct.
Just to show how wrong the picture can be..
The map above has the area I`m in represented with -9 C. It`s been all day -15 and it was -17C this morning. There are 102 stations in the warmer (southern) half on this map, ranging from +8 to -14 C and only 42 for the northern landmass, ranging from -12 to -31C.
Applying an arithmetic average for a data set like that is a stupid as stating what the average cross section of a pyramid or a sphere is..or applying the same sampling method as for population demographics.
Assume for a moment that the spatial distribution would be equal and 3.3 million square miles in Canada are at +1C and the other 3.3 million square miles are at -31 C. A "climatologist" would say that the "average temperature for Canada is -15 C. An engineer or any other real scientist scientist would not even bother doing that, but express it in an entirely different yet valid format and dimension...namely what the total thermal energy of a specified dry air mass would be, say up to 1000 feet a.g.l. would be at standard pressure for the entire system.
That`s how it`s done for everything else in science and engineering, no matter if it`s a large non-homogenous closed system or a large open one for example specifying the yield of a thermo-nuclear device.

Only a climatology moron would say the "average temperature in the Hiroshima Prefects and surrounding area was"....x degrees C after downtown Hiroshima got nuked....and if Oppenheimer would have asked such a moron how the bomb yield worked out.


Climatologists are idiots when it comes to physics!

When physicists talk about that "space" is at 2.7 deg Kelvin they are not talking about temperature but the energy level that the 2.7 deg background radiation in outer space represents.

The CMBR has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K,.[3] The spectral density peaks in the microwave range of frequencies. However spectral density can be defined either as (a) dEν/dν (as in Planck's law) or as (b) dEλ/dλ (as in Wien's displacement law), where Eν is the total energy at all frequencies up to and including ν, and Eλ is the total energy at all wave lengths up to and including λ.

Of course "Saigon" is not obligated to figure out the Canadian average (intelligence) physics puzzle,...after 2 similar simple questions that overtaxed his mental capacity he put me on his "ignore list". But as I said his "ignore list" also includes Math, Physics and Chemistry books and that`s his problem, not mine.

One could in fact derive the approximate total thermal energy in a 1000 foot layer over Canada and then eqaute that to a degree Kelvin ENERGY Content, representing a scientifically correct dimension and average..and I assure all who are reading this that this value would be nowhere near the equivalent "average temperature" that climatologists "compute" the same way simple run of the mill unemployment or income statistical average calculations are done.


@Westwall
I hope You have a good trip to St.Petersburg....and hope you "don`t have to call Ralph over the radio"....(Do you refer like that to the barf-bags too or is that only mil-jargon?).. It`s a bitch when you are a pilot and ride as a passenger...isn`t it ? You are acutely aware of all the adjustments they make on final approach, especially how poorly some passenger "sched" pilots handle a crosswind. They crab it to the last possible moment and hope the tires don`t get peeled off the rims. Almost none know how to do a proper side-slip any more, cross controlling ailerons and rudder. I makes me feel very uncomfortable when I notice how many basic skills they have lost since we got "fly by wire" with computer over-ride.

 

[Saigon]

this is not exactly the one I was looking for but it gives the general idea

I find it hard to believe that anyone would not read both sides of the story. do you expect the pro AGW crowd to point out the flaws on their side? or vice versa?

I really find it hard to believe that you think this chart is in some impressive - you must realise yourself how absurd this kind of projection is. "Recovery" from the LIA? Really?

I'm not questioning the fact that the IIPC predictions were off-target, what I am questioning is pretending that steadily rising temperatures can in some be ignored because they are not as great as the IIPC once suggested.

What matters is that temperatures ARE rising, and will rise further. Even your own chart tells us that.

 

[bripat9643]

MOre after-the-fact theorizing. Whenever reality blows the claims of the global warming quacks to smithereens, they just make up a new theory. No matter what the climate does, it's consistent with global warming, according to the quacks.

Only the truly gullible swallow this kind of cheap religion now.

.
Climate Change And Blizzards May Be Connected, Global Warming Studies Demonstrate


SETH BORENSTEIN
02/18/2013



WASHINGTON (AP) — With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.

Then when a whopper of a blizzard smacked the Northeast with more than 2 feet of snow in some places earlier this month, some of the same people again blamed global warming.

How can that be? It's been a joke among skeptics, pointing to what seems to be a brazen contradiction.
But the answer lies in atmospheric physics. A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say. And two soon-to-be-published studies demonstrate how there can be more giant blizzards yet less snow overall each year. Projections are that that's likely to continue with man-made global warming.

Consider:
<More Here>
.

 

[bripat9643]

this is not exactly the one I was looking for but it gives the general idea

I find it hard to believe that anyone would not read both sides of the story. do you expect the pro AGW crowd to point out the flaws on their side? or vice versa?

I really find it hard to believe that you think this chart is in some impressive - you must realise yourself how absurd this kind of projection is.

It's wildly unrealistic.

Exactly. Why would anyone believe anything the IPCC publishes?

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

There are better sources.

However, all sources agree that temperatures are rising - as Ian's graphic also demonstrates. I pint this out only because I know you have struggled to understand this in the past.

Ian's graphic is deliberately misleading - as anyone who spotted the phrase "recovery" from the Little Ice Age might realise. Since when are rising temperatures a "recovery"?!

 

[bripat9643]

Where's the increased temps.

Wall - you are now below the minimum level at which cany kind of sensible discussion is possible.

Apparently, "realists" believe the earth was created in the year 1970.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

There are better sources.

However, all sources agree that temperatures are rising - as Ian's graphic also demonstrates. I pint this out only because I know you have struggled to understand this in the past.

Most sources agree that temperatures have been flat or declining for the last 15 years.

Pointing out your idiocies and gullibility is not "struggling to understand."

 

[Saigon]

No matter what the climate does, it's consistent with global warming, according to the quacks.

Only the truly gullible swallow this kind of cheap religion now.

Actually, support for climate science has never been stronger. It is now accepted by all major scientific bodies, by virtually all conservative parties around the world, by oil companies and certainly by the vast majority of people.

That fact that you do not understand what the term 'climate change' means or what evidence would prove or disprove it is not the fault of science.

 

[Saigon]

Apparently, "realists" believe the earth was created in the year 1970.

Actually, othr graphics on this thread go back thousands of years. Both are useful.

Try to post honestly about these kind of things.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

There are better sources.

However, all sources agree that temperatures are rising - as Ian's graphic also demonstrates. I pint this out only because I know you have struggled to understand this in the past.

Most sources agree that temperatures have been flat or declining for the last 15 years.

Pointing out your idiocies and gullibility is not "struggling to understand."

Well, actually - you are struggling to understand.

2012 was the hottest year in American history and the 9th hottest year in global history - how does that equate with "declining" temperatures.? You just don't get this stuff - it's as simple as that.

Try looking at my graphic of temperatures since 1970 again, and try to understand it, rather than just attacking it blindly.

 

[westwall]

Wall - you are now below the minimum level at which cany kind of sensible discussion is possible.

Good! I've been trying to sink to your subterranean level for weeks now. Glad to see I have finally found your absurdly low level.

Have you noticed what shows up on your browser as it is loading an environment thread from this forum. I can tell just by the "transferring data from sceptikalscience.com" who has been posting the same usual garbage over and over again...it`s always the same crowd. They read nothing but the same agw freak.org blogs and copy/paste it in here.
Especially these stupid "average temperature" graphs that look like the sales predictions of "Solyndra" & other con artists, when they go public.
Not a single one of these idiots would be able to figure out what the average temperature for Canada would be for today:

And the same goes for "climatologists"
As if anyone could get a valid "global average" with a spatial distribution like that:

So unless one of these "experts" can tell me what the true & statistically correct average temperature for Canada is today from the map above they should shut the fuck up debating with us who`s average is correct.
Just to show how wrong the picture can be..
The map above has the area I`m in represented with -9 C. It`s been all day -15 and it was -17C this morning. There are 102 stations in the warmer (southern) half on this map, ranging from +8 to -14 C and only 42 for the northern landmass, ranging from -12 to -31C.
Applying an arithmetic average for a data set like that is a stupid as stating what the average cross section of a pyramid or a sphere is..or applying the same sampling method as for population demographics.
Assume for a moment that the spatial distribution would be equal and 3.3 million square miles in Canada are at +1C and the other 3.3 million square miles are at -31 C. A "climatologist" would say that the "average temperature for Canada is -15 C. An engineer or any other real scientist scientist would not even bother doing that, but express it in an entirely different yet valid format and dimension...namely what the total thermal energy of a specified dry air mass would be, say up to 1000 feet a.g.l. would be at standard pressure for the entire system.
That`s how it`s done for everything else in science and engineering, no matter if it`s a large non-homogenous closed system or a large open one for example specifying the yield of a thermo-nuclear device.

Only a climatology moron would say the "average temperature in the Hiroshima Prefects and surrounding area was"....x degrees C after downtown Hiroshima got nuked....and if Oppenheimer would have asked such a moron how the bomb yield worked out.


Climatologists are idiots when it comes to physics!

When physicists talk about that "space" is at 2.7 deg Kelvin they are not talking about temperature but the energy level that the 2.7 deg background radiation in outer space represents.

The CMBR has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K,.[3] The spectral density peaks in the microwave range of frequencies. However spectral density can be defined either as (a) dE&#957;/d&#957; (as in Planck's law) or as (b) dE&#955;/d&#955; (as in Wien's displacement law), where E&#957; is the total energy at all frequencies up to and including &#957;, and E&#955; is the total energy at all wave lengths up to and including &#955;.

Of course "Saigon" is not obligated to figure out the Canadian average (intelligence) physics puzzle,...after 2 similar simple questions that overtaxed his mental capacity he put me on his "ignore list". But as I said his "ignore list" also includes Math, Physics and Chemistry books and that`s his problem, not mine.

One could in fact derive the approximate total thermal energy in a 1000 foot layer over Canada and then eqaute that to a degree Kelvin ENERGY Content, representing a scientifically correct dimension and average..and I assure all who are reading this that this value would be nowhere near the equivalent "average temperature" that climatologists "compute" the same way simple run of the mill unemployment or income statistical average calculations are done.


@Westwall
I hope You have a good trip to St.Petersburg....and hope you "don`t have to call Ralph over the radio"....(Do you refer like that to the barf-bags too or is that only mil-jargon?).. It`s a bitch when you are a pilot and ride as a passenger...isn`t it ? You are acutely aware of all the adjustments they make on final approach, especially how poorly some passenger "sched" pilots handle a crosswind. They crab it to the last possible moment and hope the tires don`t get peeled off the rims. Almost none know how to do a proper side-slip any more, cross controlling ailerons and rudder. I makes me feel very uncomfortable when I notice how many basic skills they have lost since we got "fly by wire" with computer over-ride.

PB you are absolutely correct. I remember one time I was flying on Aeromaybe (AeroMexico, and never agaian!) and as we were turning from base to final I felt the flaps drop and the pilots engage full power. The aircraft was horribly twitchy. My knuckles were white on the armrests and the woman next to me said "don't like to fly dear?" to which I replied, "I'm a pilot!" and I don't like the way THESE guys are flying!

Ugh I hate commercial flying.

Anyway I'm off to bed as I have a early start tomorrow!

Cheers!

 

[Saigon]

to which I replied, "I'm a pilot!

Wow.

A pilot and a science teacher.

Always good to remember what horsehit one posted a week ago!

 

[westwall]

No matter what the climate does, it's consistent with global warming, according to the quacks.

Only the truly gullible swallow this kind of cheap religion now.

Actually, support for climate science has never been stronger. It is now accepted by all major scientific bodies, by virtually all conservative parties around the world, by oil companies and certainly by the vast majority of people.

That fact that you do not understand what the term 'climate change' means or what evidence would prove or disprove it is not the fault of science.

The very same bodies who said that Plate Tectonics was wrong. In other words appeals to authority show just how weak your arhument is. Thanks for playing but you have a whole lot to learn.

But you never will.

 

[westwall]

to which I replied, "I'm a pilot!

Wow.

A pilot and a science teacher.

Always good to remember what horsehit one posted a week ago!

That's science PROFESSOR nimrod. And yes I have a private pilots license. Even have a multi engine rating to boot. It's a shame your claim to fame is.....well....nothing...

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Yeah, sure. I had initially assumed you were tellin the truth about your background in science - but given your bleating of "where are the temperature rises" I think we both know you have no background in science. Or flying, I suspect.

Remember when you claimed we should consult the Innuit as a source of climate information?!

Or when you insisted Meterology was a much more disciplined field than Climatology?!


btw. Pointing out that there is scientific consensus on this topic is not a "appeal to authority". It's stating a fact.

 

[RollingThunder]

That's science PROFESSOR nimrod.

ROTFLMAO.......LOLOLOLOL.....ahhh, walleyed, you are sooooo funny.....you've repeatedly and very conclusively demonstrated that, in matters of science, you don't know your bung hole from your bingo card.....you poor delusional retard.....talk about a fallacious "appeal to authority"....on an anonymous forum too.....LOLOLOLOL....you're so sorely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you could be the poster boy for the fundraiser....


BTW, you corrected someone's identification of you by saying: "That's science PROFESSOR nimrod". So then, you're known 'academically' (in denier cult bizarro-world) as 'Science Professor Nimrod'. You know, you're not supposed to reveal your true name on here, although I have to admit I kinda suspected your name would be Nimrod....or Dillwad....or Lackwit....something like that...

 

[IanC]

this is not exactly the one I was looking for but it gives the general idea

I find it hard to believe that anyone would not read both sides of the story. do you expect the pro AGW crowd to point out the flaws on their side? or vice versa?

I really find it hard to believe that you think this chart is in some impressive - you must realise yourself how absurd this kind of projection is. "Recovery" from the LIA? Really?

I'm not questioning the fact that the IIPC predictions were off-target, what I am questioning is pretending that steadily rising temperatures can in some be ignored because they are not as great as the IIPC once suggested.

What matters is that temperatures ARE rising, and will rise further. Even your own chart tells us that.

impressive? no, not really but it does point out a more realistic 'model' of temps for the last 150 years. while the earth continues in a warming phase that is what it probably will look like.

you seem to have a problem with the word 'recovery'. was the Little Ice Age a 'recovery' from the Medieval Warm Period? humans prosper under warm conditions so we probably would choose a different word that points out the negative connotation of cooling.

I remember seeing a plot derived from the Vostock ice cores that showed all the 'recoveries' from LIA temps with at least 1C increases. some were steeper, some lower, some petered out at 1C some went as high as 3 or 4C. our present slope and temperature rise could not be any closer to the average.


out of curiosity, did you read that Climate Audit post that I linked for you?

 

[polarbear]

to which I replied, "I'm a pilot!

Wow.

A pilot and a science teacher.

Always good to remember what horsehit one posted a week ago!

That's science PROFESSOR nimrod. And yes I have a private pilots license. Even have a multi engine rating to boot. It's a shame your claim to fame is.....well....nothing...

See what I mean about this dimwit. It`s unthinkable to a hippie like him that someone can be a professor and a pilot. When we were younger almost every farmer or country resident had a Cessna or a Piper parked in their barns. that`s when (red 100) av-gas costed about 25 cents per gallon and there were more small un-controlled airports all over North America as there were fast food outlets. Every Prof, dentist, lawyer etc went for his pilot`s license in those years...it was a must have or you were a "nobody" in serious social circles. Now it`s a blackberry, a facebook account, an "enviro car" and sipping Starbuck coffe with fags.


Here is my good old C-206 and "Bill the Sasquatch", one of my best friends.

In my off time I volunteered for "medivacs" way up north no matter what the conditions.

The 7 foot 6 tall "Gorilla" next to me is one of my best friends. He is an emergency response volunteer and had no problem carrying invalids weighing over 300 pounds all by himself.

That C-206 was something.. I could get it airborne with 1/2 tanks and 3 passengers in less than 300 yards at 30/30 settings, standing in the toe-brakes then yank the prop-pitch to full course, no flaps...get it off the ground,...and while riding the ground effect for another 100 yards drop 20 deg flaps and climb out at almost 2000 fpm.

This "Saigon" moron also has no idea how much emphasis they put on meteorology before anyone got a license back then...because the number one killer was the weather. But Idiots like that dimwit want to lecture us pilots about atmospheric dynamics....while he would have no idea what a standard lapse rate, density altitude, a dew point etc etc is.

Morons like "Saigon" have a hard time to walk while he is chewing gum while we had to do the head math during an IFR procedure turn in lousy weather to intercept the glide slope, figure out the crab angle and rate of decent to stay on it, while behind me a woman in labor is screaming her head off ever since I picked her up from Norway House.

During sunny summer weekends I used the 206 as a glider tow plane. Even my grand daughter Renee, now D-Jay @ Rez radio was into flying.

The entire glider club consisted of surgeons, dentists lawyers, U-profs, investment brokers etc etc. "High roller Social networking" was done in pilot`s lounges back then, not on a golf course as it`s done today.

 

[polarbear]

@Westwall
Regarding Saigon & all these enviro threads where he drops his crap.
I`t easier than fakes think it is to spot the real thing and what`s a fake. My friends include people from all walks of life.
I know that You are indeed a prof & a pilot for real and that "OldRocks", to name a second example is a millwright for real.
There are certain phrases and habits that people acquire that give them away what they are and what they did for a living.
For example I only have to glance how some guys tie their shoe laces to know if they had some sort of special forces training.
There are habits you acquire that aren`t shown in Hollywood movies
or on Wikipedia. It takes one to know one...is the phrase.
The same goes for "civy" engineers. They "give themselves away" by the phrases, sentence structure and the concepts that come to their mind spontaneously.
"OldRocks" wrote me a few e-mails and I`m pretty sure he is what he says he is.
I don`t care if he has to look into Wikipedia for scientific definitions and details...he does not pretend to be something other than what he really is and has what it takes to go way beyond Millwright....and has the brains to actually comprehend concepts even if he had to look it up.
I can respect his opinions about AGW even though I have no respect for pseudo science whatsoever.
I have worked with many Millwrights and have a ton of respect for their guild.
Which by the way is no place for dummies that pretend to be "educated Journalists" in Finland and start mouthing off about atmospheric physics.
I`m not a journalist but I`ve met too many and spent a lot of time with birds of that feather to know that "Saigon" is a complete fake who has nothing better to do than trolling forums all day long every day.
An academic degree is not a measure how intelligent somebody is...
I`ve encountered incredibly stupid people with PhD degrees and met incredibly intelligent people who don`t even have a high school diploma and I respect those the most.
It`s easy to win if somebody was given superior "firepower" be that mil-hardware from the Government or a fancy College education paid for by a rich daddy.
It`s a whole other matter for a "dumb Hillbilly" to carve out a living in an unforgiving and highly competitive business-America.
I deliberately went out of my way to meet that breed of people and admire their ingenuity and skills more than those of the many quacks that pass as "scientist" in the last 2 decades.
America does not cuddle losers with the same kind of entitlements the losers in Social-Democratic Europe take for granted...and I hope America stays that way no matter how hard the professional parasites a.k.a "Democrats" are trying to conform the U.S. to the E.U. and the U.N. utopian dope head society