Faces of the weather coin

[Trakar]

CLIMATE CHANGE, and it is either happening, or the NWS is UNDER funded. Hour after hour the forecast has been off today, the line of storms is just now hitting NE Florida, Escambia county has declared a state of emergency, and the high was 80 here. NOT June weather where I live.

Trends of heat waves, more intense storms, etc., may have some connection to climate change issues, but weather is generally weather, and laying "climate change" at the feet of any particular weather event, is generally and simply inaccurate and inappropriate.

 

[Trakar]

"Ever recorded" you say? Ice core samples show weather changes that would knock your socks off. Does the global warming left think the world was created a hundred and fifty years ago?

What's wrong? Accurate quoting diminish your opportunity to raise a red herring strawman distortion? Ids that why you apparently decided to make up "ever recorded" and put quotes around it like that was anything anyone in the OP articles or subsequent posts actually asserted?

"...While this past winter was one of the warmest recorded in the eastern US,..."

 

[Trakar]

So how easy should it be to get a 3 degree temperature increase by adding 50ppm of CO2 to a controlled lab experiment?

If you are talking equivilants, not difficult at all, the problem for adequately replicating the natural state readings is in designing a controlled laboratory experiment that accurately and fully duplicates the terrestrial system, that is why modelling is usually the closest we can come to such controlled lab experiments. Alternately, we can look to the geological record, there we don't have to guess, we can calculate what the temperatures and various various forcing conditions were at various points in the Earth's history and analyze the connections observed.

Modern climate science relies upon all three processes: Simplified experimentation to establish and understand individual factor contributions, Computer models that include the multiple feedback interactions from the various individual factors, and Paleoclimate studies to establish how the Earth's systems have reacted to changes in the known variables in the past.

 

[Trakar]

It was 48 degrees right now, why isn't it warm here? Answer me that.

48 degrees is quite warm, or not, depending upon many factors not stated or clarified in your question. In general, weather is variable and its particular expression is determined by many constantly changing factors and factor interactions. Climate is the mean of weather over extended time frames (really only significant over intervals of 30 years or more).

 

[Trakar]

Melting Arctic ice will bring colder winters
Posted on June 7, 2012 - 05:38 by Kate Taylor
Melting Arctic ice will bring colder winters | TG Daily

Sure wasn't very cold 2011-2012 Winter. A lot of days were above 30 degress and NOAA said we had 50% less snowfall. 11.5 inches of snow is the most anyone in Illinois saw. Hell...it rained more then it snowed.

Regional expressions of weather patterns vary significantly day-day, month-month, and year-year, and this article (#2) is talking about global pattern shifts, not necessarily what one experiences in one particular locality within the larger region.

That said, I don't agree with the wording of the article myself. Increased preciptation (snow or rain) does not automatically, nor even usually, mean "colder" temps.

 

[Trakar]

So it is natural, why exacerbate the situation?

Describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 has the power to warm the atmosphere. It absorbs IR and then emits the IR that it absorbed. In effect, it scatters IR which is a cooling mechanism.

CO2 has no power to exacerbate anything.

CO2 and other GHGs retard or delay the exodus of energy from within the Earth system. Any time you have a flow of energy into a system and a delay of energy exiting that system, you have an accumulation of energy occurring within that system. That accumulation of energy in the Earth system is expressed as a heating of the elements within that system.

 

[Old Rocks]

So how easy should it be to get a 3 degree temperature increase by adding 50ppm of CO2 to a controlled lab experiment?

So it is natural, why exacerbate the situation?

In the long history of the world there is a wealth of evidence that the rise and fall of temperature cause the rise and fall of CO2.

Old Rocks is fond of pointing to the thin evidence that 3 times in 4.5 billion years, there may have been a reversal of this cause-effect relationship and asks us to believe that geological evidence from millions of years ago can define a difference of a couple hundred years to show that the demonstrated cause effect relationship was reversed.

You could pull a hammy with this stretch.

Before there is any talk of exacerbating anything, there should be proof that the cause-effect to which you point actually works.

So far, there is no proof.

Written by physicists, not an oil company shill.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

The arctic Sea Ice Extent is greater right now is = or > than 5 of the last 6 years.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/06/Figure2.png

Really?

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

Yup! Really.

Someday you might learn to read a chart. Maybe.

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

 

[wirebender]

CO2 and other GHGs retard or delay the exodus of energy from within the Earth system.

Aside from not being the mechanism claimed by cliamte science, how do you suppose that happens when IR passes in and out of a CO2 molecule at or very near the speed of light and can not then be absorbed by another CO2 molecule?

Any time you have a flow of energy into a system and a delay of energy exiting that system, you have an accumulation of energy occurring within that system. {/auote]

How long do you suppose a "packet" of IR takes to pass through a CO2 molecule if it is travelling at, or near the speed of light? What kind of delay are we talking about?

That accumulation of energy in the Earth system is expressed as a heating of the elements within that system.

You are operating heavily on assumption and very lightly on fact. If IR radiates from the surface of the earth at, or near the speed of light and some small bit of that IR interacts once with a CO2 molecule by passing through and then on out of the atmosphere, how much delay and how much delay and accumulation do you believe is happening.

Your idea, in order to be of a magnituded that would have any effect at all assumes that IR must be bouncing from CO2 molecule to CO2 molecule effecting an actual delay but alas, that doesn't, can't happen. IR exits a CO2 molecule at a slightly lower energy state or slightly longer wavelength than it was when it entered. Some small bit of energy was used causing the vibration a CO2 molecule experiences when IR passes through and as a result, slightly less energy is exiting (longer wavelength). And due to the very narrow absorption band of CO2, molecules simply can't absorb the emission of other like CO2 molecules.

It is that sort of assumption that has made a pseudoscience out of climate science. Models are built upon flawed and sometimes outright wrong assumptions and the output of those models is accepted as fact which is then incorporated into the work of other climate scientists as if it were true. You genuinely believe that CO2 can delay the escape of IR from the atmosphere when it simply does not happen.

Here is a link from the eia discussing the topic:

Renewable & Alternative Fuels - Analysis & Projections - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Clip: What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.

And here is a formal explanation:

Jennifer Marohasy » Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

 

[wirebender]

Written by physicists, not an oil company shill.

So it was written by a government shill suckin on the government teat. This may come as a surprise to you rocks, but the best and brightest are not working for government nor are they funded by government. Your bit of scripture below demonstrates that. I have read the whole thing, even the links and there isn't one shred of anything there that might be construed as hard, observable evidence that man is in any way responsible for the changing climate. In fact, there isn't any evidence there to support the existence of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

Maybe you should check the work being done by Nikolov and Zeller. Two PhD physicists who are in the process of bringing down the whole greenhouse sham.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Bent, I give links to scientists that I am quoting. Are you too ashamed of those scientists work to give links? Or perhaps their work is not exactly as you state?

 

[Old Rocks]

By the way, Bent, that is not just one scientific society, the American Institute of Physics is a scientific society made up of scientific societies. And not a government entity at all. Once again, you simply try a red herring lie to avoid the fact that your 'science' has no discerable relationship with real science.

 

[wirebender]

OK, Bent, I give links to scientists that I am quoting. Are you too ashamed of those scientists work to give links? Or perhaps their work is not exactly as you state?

First, I haven’t quoted them. Second, I thought you were probably bright enough to look up a couple of scientists with names as distinctive as Nikolov and Zeller. Guess I was wrong. So since you can’t find their work on your own, here are some links.
The first is a link to their paper. It is way over your head and I am sure that you won’t get a thing out of it, but here it is anyway.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf

Here are a few more links to online discussions in which Nikolov and Zeller actively participate. In case you ever wondered, that is what actual scientists do. They engage anyone and everyone regarding their work both to defend it and to find potential error or weakness within the work. As opposed to the likes of hansen, trenberth, kihel, and mann et. al. who spend a great deal of their time fighting FOIA requests and hiding data. Then when they do speak on their work, they only speak to heavily screened and controlled groups to assure that no embarrassing or unanswerable questions are asked.

Unified Theory of Climate, Nikolov and Zeller « Tallbloke's Talkshop

Nikolov & Zeller: Reply to Eschenbach « Tallbloke's Talkshop

Nikolov and Zeller: Reply to comments on the UTC part 1 « Tallbloke's Talkshop

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/201...iviner-results-for-the-s-b-standard-equation/

If you want more, just ask. There are discussions all over the web concerning their work and thus far, no one has even come close to falsifying it. It is doubtful that anyone will as their work is both supported, and predicted by the laws of physics.

 

[wirebender]

By the way, Bent, that is not just one scientific society, the American Institute of Physics is a scientific society made up of scientific societies. And not a government entity at all. Once again, you simply try a red herring lie to avoid the fact that your 'science' has no discerable relationship with real science.

You really should try and learn the difference between the political head of a scientific body and the scientific body itself. I can only guess that you are either a) unaware of or b) don't care that the scientific bodies themselves don't get to vote on the statements made by their political heads and if voting were allowed, no scientific body would have a statement in support of the hypothesis of AGW. People like Nikolov and Zeller, and Hans Jelbring are bringing about a new paradigm via actual observable, repeatable experimental evidence that has no place for the greenhouse effect fantasy that climate science is pushing.

 

[Trakar]

By the way, Bent, that is not just one scientific society, the American Institute of Physics is a scientific society made up of scientific societies. And not a government entity at all. Once again, you simply try a red herring lie to avoid the fact that your 'science' has no discerable relationship with real science.

You really should try and learn the difference between the political head of a scientific body and the scientific body itself. I can only guess that you are either a) unaware of or b) don't care that the scientific bodies themselves don't get to vote on the statements made by their political heads and if voting were allowed, no scientific body would have a statement in support of the hypothesis of AGW. People like Nikolov and Zeller, and Hans Jelbring are bringing about a new paradigm via actual observable, repeatable experimental evidence that has no place for the greenhouse effect fantasy that climate science is pushing.

That is simply arrogant ignorance on display.

 

[wirebender]

That is simply arrogant ignorance on display.

You are right, but rocks keeps proclaiming that all the scientific bodies are on board with climate pseudoscience when it is actually the political heads of the bodies that are on board because that, at present, is where the money is.

AGW is like eugenics in that when the paradigm changes, you won't be able to find anyone who actually believed in the hypothesis.

By the way, rocks hasn't the slightest idea of what "real" science is as he is nothing more than a cut and paste drone.

So, are you going to describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 causes warming without violating a law of physics. Clearly your first attempt didn't work out because one CO2 molecule can't absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule thus putting the kibash on your idea that CO2 somehow delays IR from escaping into space. By the way, when you are talking about CO2, you are only talking about radiation and radiation accounts for less than 10% of the energy transfer into the upper atmosphere. Convection and conduction are kings till the boundries of space are reached. No matter how you look at it, the math simply doesn't add up for CO2 to be anywhere near the drivers seat for the climate.