AGW: atmospheric physics

[westwall]

the temp data from the 1930's which were MUCH warmer than today.

You have to laugh don't you?

How on earth can you get yourself so confused?

1934 was the 49th hottest year on record, genius.

The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking fourth behind 2012, 2006, and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet. The U.S.'s land area accounts for only 2% of the earth's total surface area. Despite the U.S. heat in 1934, the year was not so hot over the rest of the planet, and is barely holding onto a place in the hottest 50 years in the global rankings (today it ranks 49th).

1934 is the hottest year on record

There you go. You made two assertions and I destroyed both in minutes. See how easy that is when you are deeling with someone of diminished capacity?

And only idiots like you believe falsified data. But then you thought it was OK to kill the Jews too.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

What on EARTH are you talking about?

Please try and post with a little common sense and dignity, otherwise talking with you becomes impossible.

For the 3rd time - 2012 was the hottest year in US history, and the 9th hottest gobally. 1934 was the 49th hottest year on recod - despite your laughable claim that it was "much" hotter than 2012.

But then you thought it was OK to kill the Jews too.

This comment says A LOT more about you than it does me. It is almost as stupid as it is offensive.


(btw. I have Israeli permanant residency).

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Right. I guess a lot of kids books would have the word "vagina" in the title. It makes sense.

The Big Coloring Book of Vaginas

Can you comprehend anything that you read? Do you think a kid is retiring after 40 years of work? Do you comprehend the notion of a SECOND childhood?

Guess not. You liberals are notorious for your abject lack of a sense of humor. Tight assed, sour, bitter, wretches describes most liberals that I know.

 

[SSDD]

You truly are a loon aren't you. There have been no "profound" effects anywhere on the planet. The Met Office, the IPCC, and Hansen have all had to admit that the temps have been flat for at least 16 years so where is all this profound effect originating from....when there is no warming....

Diversion is the tactic and anything will do if you simply can't defend the position you have taken. He gloams onto anything he can think of to avoid substantiating his claims.

 

[SSDD]

Westwall -

So often talking to you I feel like I am talking to a child.

Again, 2012 was the hottest year in US history. It was the 9th hottest year globally. See post #233.

Saying it doesn't make it so no matter how magically you think you said it. 2012 was not the hottest year on record and westwall has proven it unarguably. Look for some other piece of falling sky to wave your hands about. That one turned out to be an acorn.

 

[SSDD]

1934 was the 49th hottest year on record, genius.

He is talking about the temperatures prior to the systematic cooling down of the past and warming of the present.

 

[IanC]

hey SSDD- TallBloke has gone over to the dark side. hahahahahaha

I saw that Roger, Anthony and Joseph had a triangle going over Joseph's trashing of Willis's rediculous steel greenhouse mind experiment. I have to say that I think Joseph has them on the ropes because they can't explain the parts of the experiment that they simply assume to be true. There is a great deal with regards to the physics of radiation that climate science simply assumes to be true with no empirical evidence to support the belief whatsoever.

care to argue about Joe and Willis's argument? I havent actually read the comments at TB or CoS but Joe seems to go off the rails early when he talks about 1.5(^Nth iteration) rather than the straight forward infinite series 1+ (.....1/8 +1/4 +1/2) = 2

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

What on EARTH are you talking about?

Please try and post with a little common sense and dignity, otherwise talking with you becomes impossible.

For the 3rd time - 2012 was the hottest year in US history, and the 9th hottest gobally. 1934 was the 49th hottest year on recod - despite your laughable claim that it was "much" hotter than 2012.

But then you thought it was OK to kill the Jews too.

This comment says A LOT more about you than it does me. It is almost as stupid as it is offensive.


(btw. I have Israeli permanant residency).

I'm pointing out the same mental acuity that supported the Holocaust is the same mentality that supports the draconian measures to deal with the supposed warming....which it turns out hasn't been happening.

Got it numbskull? The same lack of critical thinking that led to millions being murdered drives your religion now. You think it's OK that over 60 million people have died due to malaria because a poorly done study on DDT led to its removal.

Your WHOLE mantra is about death. "There needs to be fewer people on this planet" remember that mantra? "There needs to be fewer Jews on this planet", see the similarities?

No, I didn't think you would.

And yes, it was MEANT to be as offensive as your ridiculous posts. You offend all thinking people.

 

[Saigon]

I'm pointing out the same mental acuity that supported the Holocaust is the same mentality that supports the draconian measures to deal with the supposed warming...

Then I am sure you will also see that the mental acuity of Holocaust Denial is exactly the same as the mental acuity that supports Climate Denial.

Holocaust Deniers also claim that historians back their claim, of course. Holocaust Deniers also claim to be the only ones to really understand history, as well. Everyone else has been duped, conned, fooled.

In both cases it isn't difficult to figure out which side is closer to reality.

 

[westwall]

I'm pointing out the same mental acuity that supported the Holocaust is the same mentality that supports the draconian measures to deal with the supposed warming...

Then I am sure you will also see that the mental acuity of Holocaust Denial is exactly the same as the mental acuity that supports Climate Denial.

Holocaust Deniers also claim that historians back their claim, of course. Holocaust Deniers also claim to be the only ones to really understand history, as well. Everyone else has been duped, conned, fooled.

In both cases it isn't difficult to figure out which side is closer to reality.

Yeah, you would like to think so. Hence the pejorative term applied to sceptics. That's why I now call you REVISIONISTS. Another pejorative that has a Holocaust meaning. Only with you idiots it applies quite well as you have made an industry out of "revising" the historical temperature record.

Holocaust REVISIONISTS resort to cherry picking the historical references they use, alter that which they don't like, threaten those they disagree with, and are generally of low intelligence and education.

Much like you.

Because you see dear child...we don't want to kill people....you do.

 

[Saigon]

Holocaust REVISIONISTS resort to cherry picking the historical references they use,

Right.

It's funny because on another thead some complete gimp just chose ONE physicist from the American Physical Society as an example - while ignoring the position of the entire American Physical Society!

And earlier, some complete nob decided 1934 was THE year in climate to discuss!!

Those guys must drive you nuts!

 

[SSDD]

hey SSDD- TallBloke has gone over to the dark side. hahahahahaha

I saw that Roger, Anthony and Joseph had a triangle going over Joseph's trashing of Willis's rediculous steel greenhouse mind experiment. I have to say that I think Joseph has them on the ropes because they can't explain the parts of the experiment that they simply assume to be true. There is a great deal with regards to the physics of radiation that climate science simply assumes to be true with no empirical evidence to support the belief whatsoever.

care to argue about Joe and Willis's argument? I havent actually read the comments at TB or CoS but Joe seems to go off the rails early when he talks about 1.5(^Nth iteration) rather than the straight forward infinite series 1+ (.....1/8 +1/4 +1/2) = 2

He has a point when he asks why the geometric progression doesn't continue out of control. I mean, if the output of the ball inside the hollow sphere increases its output due to the "backradiation" why not continue ad infinitum till the whole system reaches an infinite temperature? He starts with a planet radiating 235 wm2 and suddenly has a planet radiating 470 wm2. The whole thing is arbitrary with no mathematical proof whatsoever.

Tallbloke takes the discussion a step further Here when he asks where the actual physics can be found to describe the claimed greenhouse effect. As expected, he doesn't get much in the way of actual information.

I know you believe that CO2 has some effect, but there just isn't a scrap of actual evidence to support the claim and even if there were some effect (which I don't buy into) it would be so vanishingly small as to be lost in the noise of natural variability.

 

[SSDD]

Holocaust REVISIONISTS resort to cherry picking the historical references they use,

Right.

It's funny because on another thead some complete gimp just chose ONE physicist from the American Physical Society as an example - while ignoring the position of the entire American Physical Society!

And earlier, some complete nob decided 1934 was THE year in climate to discuss!!

Those guys must drive you nuts!

Not just one physicist...one of the most respected physicists in the society...

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

He may well be an excellent physicist as well - but this is EXACTLY the kind of cherry picking Westwall is complaining about, and he is right.

When you have a community of hundreds of excellent physicists - why focus on the one person who disagrees with the scientific consensus?

He may be right, be may be brilliant and I respect his stand - but why not be honest enough to admit that another hundred brilliant scientists think that he is wrong?

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

He may well be an excellent physicist as well - but this is EXACTLY the kind of cherry picking Westwall is complaining about, and he is right.

When you have a community of hundreds of excellent physicists - why focus on the one person who disagrees with the scientific consensus?

He may be right, be may be brilliant and I respect his stand - but why not be honest enough to admit that another hundred brilliant scientists think that he is wrong?

Wrong again nitwit. The LEADERSHIP of the APS has adopted the position in defiance of the membership. Do you have the mental ability to understand that very important delineation?

 

[RollingThunder]

SSDD -

He may well be an excellent physicist as well - but this is EXACTLY the kind of cherry picking Westwall is complaining about, and he is right.

When you have a community of hundreds of excellent physicists - why focus on the one person who disagrees with the scientific consensus?

He may be right, be may be brilliant and I respect his stand - but why not be honest enough to admit that another hundred brilliant scientists think that he is wrong?

Wrong again nitwit. The LEADERSHIP of the APS has adopted the position in defiance of the membership. Do you have the mental ability to understand that very important delineation?

Most of us have the "mental ability to understand" that you are a majorly delusional retard making delusional and very fraudulent claims, much like the 'flat earthers' claiming NASA is suppressing the views of all of the thousands of 'real scientists' who know that the Earth is really flat and the moon landing pictures were faked. LOL. You and your cult of AGW deniers are the new 'Flat Earthers", and you are taken about as seriously as them by everyone who doesn't read the National Enquirer or listen to Rush. Or, in other words, everyone who has an IQ higher than room temperature. The only people who buy your bullshit are the ones who are too stupid to know better.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Please don't post nonsense. If the leadership adopted postions contrary to the wishes of the members, they wouldn't have any members. I am not sure if they actually voted on the issue, but given this organisation is one of literally dozens to make similar statements, only child would suggest this is done without the views of members being considered.

 

[IanC]

I saw that Roger, Anthony and Joseph had a triangle going over Joseph's trashing of Willis's rediculous steel greenhouse mind experiment. I have to say that I think Joseph has them on the ropes because they can't explain the parts of the experiment that they simply assume to be true. There is a great deal with regards to the physics of radiation that climate science simply assumes to be true with no empirical evidence to support the belief whatsoever.

care to argue about Joe and Willis's argument? I havent actually read the comments at TB or CoS but Joe seems to go off the rails early when he talks about 1.5(^Nth iteration) rather than the straight forward infinite series 1+ (.....1/8 +1/4 +1/2) = 2

He has a point when he asks why the geometric progression doesn't continue out of control. I mean, if the output of the ball inside the hollow sphere increases its output due to the "backradiation" why not continue ad infinitum till the whole system reaches an infinite temperature? He starts with a planet radiating 235 wm2 and suddenly has a planet radiating 470 wm2. The whole thing is arbitrary with no mathematical proof whatsoever.

Tallbloke takes the discussion a step further Here when he asks where the actual physics can be found to describe the claimed greenhouse effect. As expected, he doesn't get much in the way of actual information.

I know you believe that CO2 has some effect, but there just isn't a scrap of actual evidence to support the claim and even if there were some effect (which I don't buy into) it would be so vanishingly small as to be lost in the noise of natural variability.

I dont know if the effect of CO2 is vanishingly small but I certainly agree with you that it is impossible to separate out from the noise of natural variability.

back to the shell problem...equilibrium will converge to 235W/m2 outside radiation just like before the shell was in place. until equilibrium is reached the deficit of outside radiation will charge the heat sink in the planet.

let me ask you a question. would the inside of the planet be warmer if the planet was made out of asbestos or out of steel? Joe wants to argue the question as a strawman mathematical problem but it is really just an insulated heat sink. the surface has been moved out to the shell, which must radiate 235 out but because it is separated by a vacuum that defeats conduction it is also radiating 235 in. therefore it needs a 470 source.


Joe, and others, have mangled the problem by not including the energy needed to charge the heat sink. in the beginning almost all of the source will be used to warm the planet, only as the planet starts to get much warmer does the shell receive enough radiation to be able to shed anywheres close to 235W/m2. if the energy source from the core stopped it would take a long time for the radiation to space to decrease as the heat sink would be giving up its energy.

 

[polarbear]

SSDD -

He may well be an excellent physicist as well - but this is EXACTLY the kind of cherry picking Westwall is complaining about, and he is right.

When you have a community of hundreds of excellent physicists - why focus on the one person who disagrees with the scientific consensus?

He may be right, be may be brilliant and I respect his stand - but why not be honest enough to admit that another hundred brilliant scientists think that he is wrong?

Wrong again nitwit. The LEADERSHIP of the APS has adopted the position in defiance of the membership. Do you have the mental ability to understand that very important delineation?

Forget it this dimwit has no clue what`s going on since 2000 where all the hockey stick graphs stop and he only reads "skeptikalscience.org" crap:

What on EARTH are you talking about?

Please try and post with a little common sense and dignity, otherwise talking with you becomes impossible.

For the 3rd time - 2012 was the hottest year in US history, and the 9th hottest gobally. 1934 was the 49th hottest year on recod - despite your laughable claim that it was "much" hotter than 2012.

Stillstand der Temperatur: Erklärungen für Pause der Klimaerwärmung - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung

Translation:
Climate researches are baffled why temperatures have remained stabile ( since 2000 even though CO2 went up)
As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit - Forbes

As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit

The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis. NOAA data show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the second highest since 1959, when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

This isn’t the first time in recent years that global temperatures have disobeyed the models presented by global warming activists. From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUV’s, and substantial carbon dioxide emissions.
Remarkably, global warming activists are spinning the ongoing rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, along with the ongoing lack of global temperature rise, as evidence that we are facing an even worse global warming crisis than they have been predicting.

The hockey stick math is using a geometric average to get an almost flat line out of a set of numbers, that vary wildly: for example 1, 7, 3, 6.
It`s not an arithmetic average like (1+7+3+6)/4 = 4.25....
The geometric average is the nth root of the product of n numbers:
4th root of (1*7*3*6) = 3.35...a much lower number than the arithmetic average 4.25....and the up and down variations have been washed out as well
After all that`s how the IPCC`s beloved Apostle Svante August Arrhenius did it when he calculated that the average global temperature should be -16 C without CO2...but Mathematicians also know that Math was not Arrhenius` specialty...nevertheless the IPCC still does it that way to estimate trends.
"Saigon" sure as shit has no idea else he would have noticed that every time there is hot weather the alarmists don`t apply any math at all.
When it`s a hot summer a single number is applied against the nth root of the product of n elements, the geometric average ...which yields a much lower average than a arithmetic average would be...and then apply the arithmetic average of a single number mixed with the geometric average:

For the 3rd time - 2012 was the hottest year in US history

And when it was a record cold winter, then they parrot their quack-scientists ...that`s not climate, it`s just weather...because then, they do apply the geometric average to the record low...and then there is no talk about it being the nth coldest winter.

That`s why climatologists hate being peer reviewed by people that know math and spot a cheat when they see one.

 

[polarbear]

Of the 2,500 Scientists who have submitted papers to the IPCC, only
600 looked at the science involving CO2.
Of that 600, only 308 were a part of the second review process.

Of that 308, only 62 reviewed the last chapter which looked at what to attribute the cause of Climate change to.
Of that 62 only 7 reviewers were independent; and
Of the 7, 2 did not agree with the final statement saying they believed there was a 90% certainty CO2 caused climate
change.
So the major statement of the review saying what
climate change can be attributed to was supported by
just 5 independent scientists - a few less than 2,500
On the other hand there are over 31,000 independent US
scientists who have signed a petition saying there is no
conclusive evidence CO2 caused global warming
Global Warming Petition Project