Evidence that global warming IS happening

[Abraham3]

For those of you thinking changes in the sun total irradiance has something to do with this

Note the peaks might actually be rising 0.1 Wm^-2 but, unfortunately, the troughs decrease about 0.2 Wm^-2 over the same period.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm curious about something. FCT spent a great deal of time arguing that the relationship between TSI and global temperature was likely complex and non-linear with significant and apparently variable delays. I'm just curious where and how the Earth can store the energy from sunlight without raising the temperature of SOME component of our climate. As Vitamin D? In all the world's Crooke's Radiometers? In massive mountaintop deposits of phosphorescent strontium aluminate? How?

 

[Kosh]

Once gain for the AGW cult.

Global Warming/Climate Change is a natural process that happens on this planet with or without Humans.

AGW is a farce religion.

 

[IanC]

I'm curious about something. FCT spent a great deal of time arguing that the relationship between TSI and global temperature was likely complex and non-linear with significant and apparently variable delays. I'm just curious where and how the Earth can store the energy from sunlight without raising the temperature of SOME component of our climate. As Vitamin D? In all the world's Crooke's Radiometers? In massive mountaintop deposits of phosphorescent strontium aluminate? How?

argumentum ad ignorantiam?

first things first. we need to know what level of TSI is neutral. the 20th century was a maximum for TSI as far as we can tell from the short history of solar observation.

second- highly ordered shortwave from the sun is capable of doing work. disordered, low energy longwave from backradiation is not. sunshine powers the ocean and atmospheric currents. how much energy (converted to temperature equivalents) are there in a one micrometer per second increase of the Gulf Stream? a one millimetre per second increase in Hadley Cell overturning? the majority of energy comes in through the tropics but the majority of energy leaves elsewhere.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm curious about something. FCT spent a great deal of time arguing that the relationship between TSI and global temperature was likely complex and non-linear with significant and apparently variable delays. I'm just curious where and how the Earth can store the energy from sunlight without raising the temperature of SOME component of our climate. As Vitamin D? In all the world's Crooke's Radiometers? In massive mountaintop deposits of phosphorescent strontium aluminate? How?

argumentum ad ignorantiam?

first things first. we need to know what level of TSI is neutral. the 20th century was a maximum for TSI as far as we can tell from the short history of solar observation.

second- highly ordered shortwave from the sun is capable of doing work. disordered, low energy longwave from backradiation is not.

You know that statement is false. Coherent radiation has greater capacity to do work that does incoherent radiation (on an energy equivalent basis), but it is incorrect to say that re-radiated IR has no capacity to do work.

sunshine powers the ocean and atmospheric currents.

As does reradiated infrared.

how much energy (converted to temperature equivalents) are there in a one micrometer per second increase of the Gulf Stream? a one millimetre per second increase in Hadley Cell overturning? the majority of energy comes in through the tropics but the majority of energy leaves elsewhere.

And the first non-solar manifestation of that energy - before any velocity increase in the Gulf Stream, before any effect on Hadley Cells, is INCREASED CLIMATIC TEMPERATURES.

My question stands unanswered.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now if only you could replace "Green Bay" with "Earth" it might mean something.

So the entire Earth is warmer or just the deep Pacific Ocean?

 

[Abraham3]

When one says "The Earth", Frank, it includes the deep Pacific Ocean... several other locations as well.

;-)

The temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere, as a whole, are still increasing. The radiative balance at the ToA makes that unavoidable.

 

[IanC]

back radiation is disordered and of negligible temperature differential, on balance the energy flow and capacity to do work is surface -on-atmosphere not the other way about.

backradiation can affect how solar energy transits through various parts of its path through the system but it is not doing the work.

air and ocean currents are powered by differentials in pressure, not necessarily the increase of temperature.

especially in the tropics, extra available energy goes into more evaporation, which leads to convection etc, not increased temperatures.

 

[Meister]

Moore stabbed Greenpeace in the back many years ago. His name has been anathema to the environmental movement for decades.

No doubt about that, he left the flock with good reason. He wasn't going to make his agenda a political one and voiced his opposition. Your religion couldn't let that happen.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When one says "The Earth", Frank, it includes the deep Pacific Ocean... several other locations as well.

;-)

The temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere, as a whole, are still increasing. The radiative balance at the ToA makes that unavoidable.

Based on Mann's tree rings?

 

[SSDD]

When one says "The Earth", Frank, it includes the deep Pacific Ocean... several other locations as well.

;-)

The temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere, as a whole, are still increasing. The radiative balance at the ToA makes that unavoidable.

LW at the TOA is increasing, not decreasing as the AGW hypothesis predicts. You have seen the graphs showing an increase of LW escaping at the TOA...why do you persist in telling the lie that less LW is escaping?

 

[SSDD]

I thought about it and I looked it up and here's what turns out to be the case.

The slower cooling by rising, wet air turns out to be a negative feedback from global warming.

As the world heats up, our computer models tell us that we will see increased evaporation and thus higher average humidity in the atmosphere. Given the way lapse rates actually work, that means warmer air aloft. That means more LW radiation getting out to space than were that warmth to stay low. So there was a measure of correctness in SSDD's position. I should have seen it earlier. Just a few points though.

It first has to get warmer for the humidity to increase and the amount of warm air aloft to increase. This is a feedback mechanism, not a barrier or an independent process. Feedback mechanisms cannot stop their driving processes or make them reverse, they can only mitigate. Per the laws of physics, this can NOT cause water vapor to be a net coolant. And if you want to treat this process as being adiabatic, which it comes quite close to if you're only considering conductive and convective cooling, than it has NO effect on global warming because, by choice, you would NOT concern yourself with any LW radiation or any other means of heat transfer. Just to get this point across, a parcel of air rising through the atmosphere does not require losing thermal energy to its surroundings to cool. It cools because pressure is dropping and the parcel is expanding. In essence, you have to spread the same amount of energy across a larger volume and thus the energy density (ie, the temperature) has to drop.

Again with the models...they have failed spectacularly...anyone who references what a model predicts, considering their record is a buffoon....oh, never mind, it is you who is referencing models.....nuff said.

 

[Abraham3]

In that case, your contention concerning lapse rates and warming is completely without merit. Those models' predictions that AGW would lead to increased humidity was the only thing you had going for you.

 

[racewright]

Physic equations that show co2, water vapor and methane are green house gases

That works both ways in this debate.

There is NO compelling scientific evidence that Man is causing global warming (of which, none has actually happened for close on a decade).

We have opinions, from vested interests, based on over inflated probabilities - all of which probability based predictions have so far been wrong.

It makes no sense, in any way, to continue to waste money offsetting an effect that a) hasn't existed for a decade, and b) when it did exist was in keeping with earlier similar periods of warming when man's activity is not being blamed.

What the AGW "consensus" theory comes down to is "We've made these predictions, so far all past predictions have been wrong, but we are still confident in our methodology so you better believe our current predictions".

In comparison Pascal made a serious attempt at a compelling argument.

All The Best

Uh What you mean my car is being over regulated, who do we sue, how about the environment wackos.

 

[racewright]

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming
Submitted by chris cudnoski on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 18:41
in Current Events
Quicklink


http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-s...

There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.



“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-s...

We know he is lying








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Abraham3]

We have opinions, from vested interests, based on over inflated probabilities - all of which probability based predictions have so far been wrong.

You don't consider the fossil fuel industry a "vested interest"?

The majority of the errors in the predictions of the IPCC have been towards the conservative side. GHG emissions are matching their worst case scenario. Until the hiatus, models the IPCC chose were consistently BELOW observed temperatures.

I don't understand why you say there is no evidence that man is causing global warming then say that Moore, who has said the exact same thing, is lying. Perhaps you need to clarify what you're trying to say there.

 

[SSDD]

In that case, your contention concerning lapse rates and warming is completely without merit. Those models' predictions that AGW would lead to increased humidity was the only thing you had going for you.

Not models...actual data goober. The compiled results of literally hundreds of thousands of radiosondes, aircraft measurements, etc. I know it must be difficult for you, but model data is not actual data....and when observed data differs from the models, the models are patently wrong.

Are ready to start explaining, using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science, why the bottom of the troposphere on Uranus (as you pointed out, one of the coldest places in the solar system) is warmer than the bottom of the troposphere on earth?

 

[SSDD]

You don't consider the fossil fuel industry a "vested interest"?

Not really since they stand to make money no matter which way the coin falls. If prices increase due to green regulation, they simply pass the cost on to the consumer and as always, the green way hurts those who can least afford it. I can pay 5 or 6 bucks a gallon or more for gas...I won't like it, but I can pay it and continue to drive my 4WD pickup...what happens to the poor folks who can't afford it?

majority of the errors in the predictions of the IPCC have been towards the conservative side. GHG emissions are matching their worst case scenario. Until the hiatus, models the IPCC chose were consistently BELOW observed temperatures.

Bald faced lie. Refer to the chart below....maybe you don't understand what majority means. See all the lines above the measured temp on the chart below...see how there are many more of them than likes that approximate the measured temperature? That means that the majority are wrong..and not wrong on the conservative side...they predicted warming that didn't happen.

 

[racewright]

We have opinions, from vested interests, based on over inflated probabilities - all of which probability based predictions have so far been wrong.

You don't consider the fossil fuel industry a "vested interest"?

The majority of the errors in the predictions of the IPCC have been towards the conservative side. GHG emissions are matching their worst case scenario. Until the hiatus, models the IPCC chose were consistently BELOW observed temperatures.

I don't understand why you say there is no evidence that man is causing global warming then say that Moore, who has said the exact same thing, is lying. Perhaps you need to clarify what you're trying to say there.

My comment about lying is meant to be sarcastic ,as that is what the environuts always say when faced with any thing they do not agree with.

 

[Abraham3]

You don't consider the fossil fuel industry a "vested interest"?

Not really since they stand to make money no matter which way the coin falls. If prices increase due to green regulation, they simply pass the cost on to the consumer and as always, the green way hurts those who can least afford it. I can pay 5 or 6 bucks a gallon or more for gas...I won't like it, but I can pay it and continue to drive my 4WD pickup...what happens to the poor folks who can't afford it?

Bullshit. The oil and coal industries stand to lose billions and they are fighting AGW measures tooth and nail. There's a reason they've been the largest contributors to denialist blogs and bogus research for years now.

majority of the errors in the predictions of the IPCC have been towards the conservative side. GHG emissions are matching their worst case scenario. Until the hiatus, models the IPCC chose were consistently BELOW observed temperatures.

Bald faced lie. Refer to the chart below....maybe you don't understand what majority means. See all the lines above the measured temp on the chart below...see how there are many more of them than likes that approximate the measured temperature? That means that the majority are wrong..and not wrong on the conservative side...they predicted warming that didn't happen.

[/QUOTE]

Here, from Dr Spencer's mouth, the source of Spencer's BALD FACED LIE

"In this case, the models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations."

Spencer SHIFTED the output of all these models upwards and his UAH data downward. Here's is what the model outputs and data ACTUALLY look like:

An explanation and other data: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

And I'm just about certain this has all been explained to you before Sid.