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

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Mar 16, 2010
59,455
6,793
1,900
The Good insane United states of America
Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
Posted on 12 July 2011 by Kevin Trenberth
Energy and Climate

Climate change is very much involved with energy, most commonly in the form of heat but other forms of energy are also important. Radiation comes in from the sun (solar radiation at short wavelengths), and every body radiates according to its temperature (proportional to the fourth power of absolute temperature), so that on Earth we, and the surface and atmosphere radiate at infrared wavelengths.

Weather and climate on Earth are determined by the amount and distribution of incoming radiation from the sun. For an equilibrium climate, global mean outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) necessarily balances the incoming absorbed solar radiation (ASR), but with redistributions of energy within the climate system to enable this to happen on a global basis. Incoming radiant energy may be scattered and reflected by clouds and aerosols (dust and pollution) or absorbed in the atmosphere. The transmitted radiation is then either absorbed or reflected at the Earth’s surface. Radiant solar (shortwave) energy is transformed into sensible heat (related to temperature), latent energy (involving different water states), potential energy (involving gravity and altitude) and kinetic energy (involving motion) before being emitted as longwave infrared radiant energy. Energy may be stored, transported in various forms, and converted among the different types, giving rise to a rich variety of weather or turbulent phenomena in the atmosphere and ocean. Moreover the energy balance can be upset in various ways, changing the climate and associated weather

Hence the incoming radiation may warm up the ground or any object it hits, or it may just go into drying up surface water. After it rains and the sun comes out, the puddles largely dry up before the temperature goes up. If energy is absorbed it raises the temperature. The surface of the body then radiates but also loses heat by transfer through cooler winds or by evaporative cooling. Some energy gets converted into motion as warm air rises and cold air sinks, and this creates winds and thus kinetic energy, which gets dissipated by friction. Over oceans the winds drive ocean currents.

The differential between incoming and outgoing radiation: the net radiation is generally balanced by moving air of different temperature and moisture content around. Air temperature affects density as warmer air expands and thus it takes up more room, displacing cooler air, thereby changing the air in a column whose weight determines the surface pressure. Consequently, this sets up pressure differences that in turn cause winds, which tend to blow in such a way as to try to offset the temperature differences. The Earth’s rotation modifies this simple picture. A result is that southerlies are warm in the northern hemisphere and northerlies are cold. And so we get weather with clouds and rain in all of its wondrous complexity.

The changing seasons illustrate what happens as the sun apparently moves across the equator into the other hemisphere. In summer some excess heat goes into the ocean, which warms up reaching peak values about the equinox, and in winter the land cools off but heat comes out of the oceans and this is carried onto land, and so oceans moderate the seasonal climate variations. Much of the exchange involves water evaporating and precipitating out, and thus the hydrological cycle.

The same can happen from year to year: heat can accumulate in the ocean and then later be released, leading to warmer spells and cooler spells. This commonly happens in the tropical Pacific and gives rise to the El Niño phenomenon. El Niño is the warm phase in the tropical Pacific while La Niña is the cool phase. During and following an El Niño there is a mini global warming as heat comes out of the ocean, while during La Niña, heat tends to get stored in the ocean. The El Niño cycle is irregular but has a preferred time scale of 3 to 7 years.

Ocean heat storage can last longer: for decades or centuries and inevitably involves ocean currents and the much deeper ocean. In the North Atlantic, cold waters sink and move equatorward at depth while the Gulf Stream at the surface takes warmer waters polewards, creating an overturning circulation that can also involve density changes in the ocean associated with both temperature and salt (the thermohaline circulation). Salty water is denser. Nonetheless, much of the ocean overturning circulation is wind driven. The overturning may involve the ocean down to several kilometers and can take many centuries to complete a cycle.

As well as the ocean taking up heat, heat can be lost by forming ice, as glaciers, ice caps, or major ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctica) on land, or as sea ice. Extra heat can melt this ice and may contribute to sea level rise if land ice melts. Surface land can also absorb a small amount of heat but not much and not to great depths as it relies on conduction to move heat through the land unless water is flowing. Land energy variations occur mostly in the form of water or its absence, as heat goes to evaporate surface water. Highest temperatures and heat waves typically occur in droughts or deserts.

The atmosphere can not hold much heat and is dependent for its temperature on links to the underlying surface through conduction and thermals, convection, and radiation, as well as the wind in moving it around.

The global energy budget
In the past, we (Kiehl and Trenberth 1997) provided estimates of the global mean flow of energy through the climate system and presented a best-estimate of the energy budget based on various measurements and models, by taking advantage of the fact that energy is conserved. We also performed a number of radiative computations to examine the spectral features of the incoming and outgoing radiation and determined the role of clouds and various greenhouse gases in the overall radiative energy flows. At the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) values relied heavily on observations from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) from 1985 to 1989, when the TOA values were approximately in balance.

Values are given in terms of Watts per square meter. The incoming radiation is about 342 W m-2. But there are about 5.1x1014 square meters for the surface area and so the total incoming energy is about 174 PetaWatts (=1015 watts, and so 174 with 15 zeros after it or 174 million billion). About 30% is reflected back to space and so about 122 PW flows through the climate system. For comparison, the biggest electric power plants are of order 1000 MegaWatts, and so the natural flow of energy is 122 million of these power plants. If we add up all of the electric energy generated and add in the other energy used by humans through burning etc, it comes to about 1/9000th of the natural energy flow. Hence the direct effects of human space heating and energy use are small compared with the sun, although they can become important very locally in cities where they contribute to the urban heat island effect.

New observations from space have enabled improved analyses of the energy flows. Trenberth et al. (2009) have updated the earlier global energy flow diagram (Fig. 1) based on measurements from March 2000 to November 2005, which include a number of improvements. We deduced the TOA energy imbalance to be 0.9 W m-2, where the error bars are ±0.5 W m-2 based on a number of estimates from both observations and models.

Figure1.png


Read more-> Trenberth on Tracking Earth
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Further thoughts on Trenberth's energy "budget".

Trenberth has made a very fundamental error in devising his energy budget. His budget divides the solar energy input by 4 (P/4) by turning the earth into a flat disk that is constantly irradiated to the magnitude of a sort of twilight. Right off the bat, he deviates from reality and therefore everything that comes after comes from and represents an imagined reality that does not exist.

You can use that sort of formula on stars which look, and radiate the same from every angle (blackbody) but attempting to use it on earth is a foundational error. The earth is not a 3D, 360 degree self illuminating body. The earth is, in reality (as far as energy input goes) a 3D, 180 degree, illuminated hemisphere where the actual daily input from the sun should be expressed as P/2, not P2.

His energy budget assumes that the solar input over the 12 hours of daylight is the same as the satellite measured output over 24 hours. If you calculate the solar input over the 12 hours that it actually occurs, you don't need a greenhouse effect to make the earth 33 degrees warmer than it should be.

If you calculate solar input as it exists in reality, you actually find that the hemisphere that is receiving the solar input is slightly cooler than it should be. This, as I have stated before is due to the fact that CO2 by absorbing and emitting IR in multiple directions serves to scatter IR which, in effect, aids in dissipating the energy more efficiently.

At night, the cooling down is slowed by the presence of water vapor, not CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas.
 
Last edited:
At night, the cooling down is slowed by the presence of water vapor, not CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas.

If water can be a greenhouse, why not other molecules? What's the magic formula that shows only H2O has those properties?

I have explained this to you in detail before konradv. It is because water vapor, unlike other so called greenhouse gasses, actually does have the ability to trap and retain heat within the molecule. It is the only substance known to man that can do this trick in the open atmosphere. It can do this because it can change phases (solid, liquid, gas) in the open atmosphere. Other substances (CO2 for example) can trap or retain energy when undergoing a phase change, but CO2 can't change to its various phases in the open atmosphere. In order to make it a liquid, you must pressurize it to at least 5.1 atmospheres and in order to make it solid, you must take it down to -108 degrees F.

flacalten loves to point at dry ice and say that CO2 can absorb and retain energy but dry ice does not occur naturally in the open atmosphere and if it did, global warming would be the least of your problems. It can not absorb and hold, retain, or trap energy in its gaseous state.

When I explained it to you the first time, I gave you an experiment which you can perform in your own kitchen so that you can actually see water absorbing energy but not becoming warmer.

Here is a link to the first time I explained this to you and to the experiment by which you can prove it to yourself.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3528156-post96.html

Water vapor can absorb and actually retain energy. It doesn't necessarily absorb and immediately emit the same amount of energy it absorbs. All other so called greenhouse gasses absorb energy and then emit precisely the same amount they absorbed. There is no retention, or trapping of energy by the molecule. It absorbs and emits and because doesn't necesarily emit in the same direction in which it absorbed, it serves to scatter the IR that it absorbs. It doesn't take a PhD to recognize that by scattering IR, you are going to have a cooling effect rather than a warming effect.

I asked you before how long you thought it might take a "packet" of IR to radiate from the surface of the earth to cold space. It was a serious question. How long do you think radiated IR remains in the atmosphere before it is gone?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
At night, the cooling down is slowed by the presence of water vapor, not CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas.

If water can be a greenhouse, why not other molecules? What's the magic formula that shows only H2O has those properties?

I have explained this to you in detail before konradv. It is because water vapor, unlike other so called greenhouse gasses, actually does have the ability to trap and retain heat within the molecule. It is the only substance known to man that can do this trick in the open atmosphere. It can do this because it can change phases (solid, liquid, gas) in the open atmosphere. Other substances (CO2 for example) can trap or retain energy when undergoing a phase change, but CO2 can't change to its various phases in the open atmosphere. In order to make it a liquid, you must pressurize it to at least 5.1 atmospheres and in order to make it solid, you must take it down to -108 degrees F.

flacalten loves to point at dry ice and say that CO2 can absorb and retain energy but dry ice does not occur naturally in the open atmosphere and if it did, global warming would be the least of your problems. It can not absorb and hold, retain, or trap energy in its gaseous state.

When I explained it to you the first time, I gave you an experiment which you can perform in your own kitchen so that you can actually see water absorbing energy but not becoming warmer.

Here is a link to the first time I explained this to you and to the experiment by which you can prove it to yourself.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3528156-post96.html

Water vapor can absorb and actually retain energy. It doesn't necessarily absorb and immediately emit the same amount of energy it absorbs. All other so called greenhouse gasses absorb energy and then emit precisely the same amount they absorbed. There is no retention, or trapping of energy by the molecule. It absorbs and emits and because doesn't necesarily emit in the same direction in which it absorbed, it serves to scatter the IR that it absorbs. It doesn't take a PhD to recognize that by scattering IR, you are going to have a cooling effect rather than a warming effect.

I asked you before how long you thought it might take a "packet" of IR to radiate from the surface of the earth to cold space. It was a serious question. How long do you think radiated IR remains in the atmosphere before it is gone?

I would like you to go debate the people at Skeptical science and make them looks like idiots---Like you're making most of the warmers here. That would do some good as they're the more hard core knowledgeable ones. I will be reading of course.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

If you win there then no one here can even start to touch your theories...Next you should go up against hansen and friends. Face to face.
 
Last edited:
I would like you to go debate the people at Skeptical science and make them looks like idiots---Like you're making most of the warmers here. That would do some good as they're the more hard core knowledgeable ones. I will be reading of course.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

If you win there then no one here can even start to touch your theories...Next you should go up against hansen and friends. Face to face.

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.
 
I fogot to mention; over at climate skeptics, when you are winning a discussion on the skeptical side, the board administration censors your posts.
 
Water vapor can absorb and actually retain energy. It doesn't necessarily absorb and immediately emit the same amount of energy it absorbs. All other so called greenhouse gasses absorb energy and then emit precisely the same amount they absorbed. There is no retention, or trapping of energy by the molecule. It absorbs and emits and because doesn't necesarily emit in the same direction in which it absorbed, it serves to scatter the IR that it absorbs. It doesn't take a PhD to recognize that by scattering IR, you are going to have a cooling effect rather than a warming effect.

If CO2 scatters IR, wouldn't that mean photons heading for space could be absorbed and then re-emitted back towards earth, thereby adding to energy on earth? They were previously heading out, a minus,and now they're headsing in, a plus.

I also have a bone to pick with you over the staement that GHGs " absorb energy and emit precisely the same amount they absorbed". You've also said that the wavelength changes, so ithe photon couldn't be absorbed by another CO2. That doesn't make sense, when you consider your penchant for extolling the math. The energy of a photon is determined by the equation, E=hv, where 'v' is the wavelength and 'h' is a constant. Therefore, one of your theses ihas to be wrong. Either the 'E' and 'v' change or the 'E' and 'v' don't change. Saying the 'E' doesn't change, but the 'v' does, just bolsters my contention that you live in a world where normal physical laws don't apply!!!
 
I fogot to mention; over at climate skeptics, when you are winning a discussion on the skeptical side, the board administration censors your posts.

Are you sure it isn't because the board rules insist on scientific truth, instead of the fantasy physics you extol? I mean, even the skeptics I argue with all the time don't seem to have your back when it comes to explaining the physics and math of the situation. What you call "censorship" is probably a case of moderators cleaning up useless SPAM.
 
If CO2 scatters IR, wouldn't that mean photons heading for space could be absorbed and then re-emitted back towards earth, thereby adding to energy on earth? They were previously heading out, a minus,and now they're headsing in, a plus.

No konradv. What you guys, and climate science in general doesn't seem to grasp, or are deliberately overlooking is that when you are calculating the transport of electromagnetic energy (em fields), the direction of energy flow is determined by field vector calculus. We have been through this ad nauseum. You can't send a photon upstream against a field of greater magnituded along any given vector and the EM field from the earth emits along all possible vectors.

I also have a bone to pick with you over the staement that GHGs " absorb energy and emit precisely the same amount they absorbed". You've also said that the wavelength changes, so ithe photon couldn't be absorbed by another CO2.

That doesn't make sense, when you consider your penchant for extolling the math. The energy of a photon is determined by the equation, E=hv, where 'v' is the wavelength and 'h' is a constant. Therefore, one of your theses ihas to be wrong. Either the 'E' and 'v' change or the 'E' and 'v' don't change. Saying the 'E' doesn't change, but the 'v' does, just bolsters my contention that you live in a world where normal physical laws don't apply!!!

Yes, the energy of the photon does not change but that says nothing at all about the energy that caused the photon to be released in the first place konradv. Look at a neon light. Do you believe the photons emitted by the neon gas within the tube are of the same frequency that excited the gas in the first place? Think just a little bit guy. This really isn't all that complicated. I understand that you have submitted yourself to baseless appeals to complexity for a long time now, but when you get down to the brass tacks, this stuff isn't all that complicated.

If you would like to see an experiment that proves the claim, you can see it here with an explanation below the video:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3858902-post39.html

One of two things is happening in that experiment. Either A) the CO2 within the tube is reaching a saturation point at which the IR from the candle can no longer be transmitted because there is nowhere for the emission to go but another CO2 molecule which can't absorb the emission; or B) the CO2 within the tube is so effective at scattering and dissapating the IR from the candle that none is left to reach the other side of the tube where the camera sits. Personally, I don't believe that "B" is happening, but if it is, then the idea that a gas that could so effectively dissipate heat in the form of IR could cause warming is just dumb.

Of course, the CO2 isn't that good at dissipating heat. If it were, it would find use in heat control applications everywhere you look.
 
Are you sure it isn't because the board rules insist on scientific truth, instead of the fantasy physics you extol? I mean, even the skeptics I argue with all the time don't seem to have your back when it comes to explaining the physics and math of the situation. What you call "censorship" is probably a case of moderators cleaning up useless SPAM.

Quite sure and examples abound on the internet.

As to your claim of "fantasy physics" on my part, to date, none of you guys has ponted out any mathematical error on my part of any misapplied law of physics. So far, no one has even begun to prove me wrong. Physics are involved in this debate, but none of you warmist sorts is able to name any law of physics upon which you base your claims or a law of physics that predicts your stated claims. Could it be that perhaps, it is the physics that you depend on are the fantasy? After all, I am able to state the laws upon which I base my claims and do the math according to those laws in support of my claims.

And the fact that lukewarmers don't back me up doesn't prove me right or wrong. That is just another fallacious appeal to pseudoauthority and in no way represents any real argument. If no one backed me up, it wouldn't make any difference so long as none of you warmists were able to point out any mathematical error on my part or a misapplied law of physics and prove your claim mathematically.

Of course I am not the only one who holds the position I hold. A very large number of physicists, astrophysicists, analytical chemists, etc., hold the same positiion as I do and no one, at any level, is proving them wrong either. In fact, at the highest levels of climate science, they are avoided like the plague because debate with people who are prepared to discuss the fundamental scientific principles of physics and chemistry never works out well for warmists.
 
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?
 
If CO2 scatters IR, wouldn't that mean photons heading for space could be absorbed and then re-emitted back towards earth, thereby adding to energy on earth? They were previously heading out, a minus,and now they're headsing in, a plus.

No konradv. What you guys, and climate science in general doesn't seem to grasp, or are deliberately overlooking is that when you are calculating the transport of electromagnetic energy (em fields), the direction of energy flow is determined by field vector calculus. We have been through this ad nauseum. You can't send a photon upstream against a field of greater magnituded along any given vector and the EM field from the earth emits along all possible vectors.

I also have a bone to pick with you over the staement that GHGs " absorb energy and emit precisely the same amount they absorbed". You've also said that the wavelength changes, so ithe photon couldn't be absorbed by another CO2.

That doesn't make sense, when you consider your penchant for extolling the math. The energy of a photon is determined by the equation, E=hv, where 'v' is the wavelength and 'h' is a constant. Therefore, one of your theses ihas to be wrong. Either the 'E' and 'v' change or the 'E' and 'v' don't change. Saying the 'E' doesn't change, but the 'v' does, just bolsters my contention that you live in a world where normal physical laws don't apply!!!

Yes, the energy of the photon does not change but that says nothing at all about the energy that caused the photon to be released in the first place konradv. Look at a neon light. Do you believe the photons emitted by the neon gas within the tube are of the same frequency that excited the gas in the first place? Think just a little bit guy. This really isn't all that complicated. I understand that you have submitted yourself to baseless appeals to complexity for a long time now, but when you get down to the brass tacks, this stuff isn't all that complicated.

I don't trust your analysis at all. I made a mistake in my previous post and you didn't pick it up. The 'v' in the formula stands for frequency, not wavelength. The rest of the analysis holds, however, since frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength.

As for change in frequencies, that's irrelevant. I don't care what the frequency of the photon is, just whether it's going towards space or earth. You still haven't explained how "scattered" photons heading towards earth rather than space, don't add to the total energy of the planet!!!

Also, your explanation of EM vectors is totally bogus, IMHO. I know you've told us about it ad nauseum, but that doesn't make it any more believable to me or even the AGW skeptics. According to your "theory", I shouldn't be able to see the moon in the daytime (that interfering EM from the sun and all, you know), but sometimes I do. Please explain why your EM vectors don't work in that case?
 
I don't trust your analysis at all. I made a mistake in my previous post and you didn't pick it up. The 'v' in the formula stands for frequency, not wavelength. The rest of the analysis holds, however, since frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength.

I knew what you were getting at konradv and jumping on spelling errors isn't my style. I don't have to nitpick everyting in order to make my self feel good or feel superior.

If you don't trust my analysis, then it begs the question, "based on what?". Clearly you don't have a sufficient grasp on the science to know whether I am right or wrong and equally don't know whether climate scientists are right or wrong. Your analysis is based on your poliitcal preferences, not any actual scientific standard or knowledge.

As for change in frequencies, that's irrelevant. I don't care what the frequency of the photon is, just whether it's going towards space or earth. You still haven't explained how "scattered" photons heading towards earth rather than space, don't add to the total energy of the planet!!!

Yes I have konradv. I have explained it over and over to you. When two EM fields oppose each other you must subtract the fields and if the difference is greater than zero, the direction from which the stronger field was propagated determines the direction of all energy flow. That includes photons.

Also, your explanation of EM vectors is totally bogus, IMHO. I know you've told us about it ad nauseum, but that doesn't make it any more believable to me or even the AGW skeptics. According to your "theory", I shouldn't be able to see the moon in the daytime (that interfering EM from the sun and all, you know), but sometimes I do. Please explain why your EM vectors don't work in that case?

Then prove me wrong. Prove the numerous hard scientists who are saying the same thing that I am wrong.

And I have explained the moon business to you as well konradv. The fact that you don't understand that a thing is being explained to you is just a bit scary. The EM vectors do work in that case konradv. The EM vectors work in every case. What you don't seem to grasp is that EM vectors work in straight lines. If you were standing on the surface of the sun, you would not be able to see the moon, or anything else that propagated an EM field weaker than where you were standing. The moon is reflecting the sun's energy and it has no atmosphere. What would make you beleive that that emitted energy was less than that emitted by the surface of the earth considering the amount of energy the atmosphere absorbs?
 
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.
 
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.

Thing is, it can't be proven either way. Anyone with an ounce of scientific acumen knows that. At this point, at least, we can try to make some educated decisions but ultimately have to admit we don't know how much of climate change we see in our lifetime is caused by man and how much is due to other factors. So yeah, the extremes on both sides misrepresent the case.
 
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?

I don't recall ever using climategate or any of the other lesser gates as a basis for my arguments. Could you provide a post by me in which I use any of that as an argument?

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.

Where the CO2 is coming from is meaningless unless you can first prove that CO2 is driving the climate. Neither you, nor any climate scientist has even come close to providing anything like proof. The whole hypothesis is based on climate models and is flawed at its very foundations.

And what "contortions" might I be guilty of. Do you believe I have misapplied any law of physics? Which one(s). Have I made a mathematical error? Where exactly? It is you and yours who are doing the wild gyrations claiming I am wrong while unable to prove it or even point out an error on my part.
 
Tuesday's high temperature in Phoenix set a new record at 114...
:eek:
Phoenix-area August heat rewriting the records; Valley could hit 116 today
Aug. 24, 2011 - Not much relief in sight as daily highs continue to rise
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

See also:

Heat watch: Temperatures are going to go up, if you can believe it
Unrelenting heat: 105 degrees possible this weekend in Houston
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
 

Forum List

Back
Top