GLOBAL WARMING? NASA says Antarctic has been COOLING for past

[SSDD]

Lame!!!! a two sentence description of a lecture! with no quantifications.

I figured you were bright enough to look further if you were interested...the fact is that no one knows...but we do know...and you should know that if the sun were dimmer, there isn't enough CO2 available on earth to bring it out of an ice age....So what brought the earth out....if not CO2...then what?

For someone who seems bright enough to have stellar critical thinking skills...when it comes to CO2 you seem to go dim...Do you really believe that a deep ice age could be brought to an end by atmospheric CO2? Really?

By the way...do we really have any data on our own sun from back then to support the current hypothesis? We have some snap shots in time of stars similar to our own, but we have a few hundred years of data on our own sun and that's it. Looking at other stars and making inferences to our own sun in its earlier years is really not telling us anything...it is storytelling and little more.

 

[IanC]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

"Much less noise caused by water vapour"? Care to explain that one Ian?

the various pathways of water mask the effect of CO2. Antarctica should have a much clearer CO2 signal. it does not.

The net warming effect of increased CO2 includes a large reinforcement from increased water vapor caused by increased temperatures. With virtually no water vapor increase, the net increase is smaller than elsewhere and more easily overwhelmed by noise. The lack of water vapor makes it more difficult to see the direct correlation, not easier.

an interesting view of the situation, and one that is a fine example of how you confuse the issues.

CO2 is the prime interest. theoretical calculations done with 'empirical evidence' measurement data suggest slightly over 1C/doubling. this happens in two general ways, at two locations. at the surface boundary all relevant IR wavelengths are absorbed to extinction by the first ten meters of air. double the CO2 and the same amount of IR is absorbed by less than ten meters of air. the same amount of energy in less volume means higher temperature. at the other end of the atmosphere, when the concentration of CO2 diminishes to the point where CO2 emitted IR actually escapes rather than being reabsorbed, the amount is dependent on the hieght because temperature drops as you get higher (at least most of the way up). that is the general mechanism, heating at the bottom and less cooling at the top.

but crick would prefer to use CO2 as a proxy for water vapour! the measly 1C for CO2 cannot be used to invent scary CAGW predictions, but along came the idea to use the hypothetical warming from CO2 to increase water vapour which triples the warming! a massive positive feedback! everything will spiral out of control!

where's the problem with this scenario? you can use the energy retarded by CO2 to warm the surface or evaporate the water, but not both at the same time in full measure. the reality is some of both. the other problem is that water vapour not only absorbs surface IR radiation but it powers convection (an air conditioner), and when it reaches a certain height it forms clouds (an umbrella to block solar radiation).

another problem is entropy. climate models consider the the diffuse, low energy wavelength backradiation to be equal to the same amount of solar radiation, which is both collimated (organized) and high energy wavelength. one is capable of doing work and the other is not.

over and over again, the proponents of CO2 theory put what they want to happen in the best light and ignore the parts they cannot understand, eg clouds. when measurements from reality dont agree with their wishes they simply 'reanalyze' it until it does. the rationalizations are astounding. they say there is no 'Pause' but they have 50 excuses for it.

there are far too many holes and inconsistencies for me to agree with global warming as it stands, even if they have drastically cut their climate sensitivity figures. it doesnt work as designed, it's time for a new and improved theory.

 

[IanC]

Lame!!!! a two sentence description of a lecture! with no quantifications.

I figured you were bright enough to look further if you were interested...the fact is that no one knows...but we do know...and you should know that if the sun were dimmer, there isn't enough CO2 available on earth to bring it out of an ice age....So what brought the earth out....if not CO2...then what?

For someone who seems bright enough to have stellar critical thinking skills...when it comes to CO2 you seem to go dim...Do you really believe that a deep ice age could be brought to an end by atmospheric CO2? Really?

By the way...do we really have any data on our own sun from back then to support the current hypothesis? We have some snap shots in time of stars similar to our own, but we have a few hundred years of data on our own sun and that's it. Looking at other stars and making inferences to our own sun in its earlier years is really not telling us anything...it is storytelling and little more.

I did look around a bit. I saw nothing and I figured if you couldnt put forth a decent link then there was probably slim pickings to be found. prove me wrong.

and...when did I say 'Do you really believe that a deep ice age could be brought to an end by atmospheric CO2'. I make enough clear and detailed statements that you should be able to argue what I say rather than make shit up.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your statement is categorically false by empirical evidence. Please provide your data, methods, and math as to how you came to this unsupported and false conclusion.

And you're going to show us the empirical evidence you claim falsifies my statement, right?

You made the statement, now back it up with empirical evidence and facts! MODELS ARE NOT ANY FORM OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!

 

[Crick]

Empirical evidence exists that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and warms the planet. What's lacking here is any empirical evidence from you that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or that the greenhouse effect does not warm the planet. Despite decades of trying, you and yours have certainly found no alternative cause for the warming we've experienced.

 

[SSDD]

Lame!!!! a two sentence description of a lecture! with no quantifications.

I figured you were bright enough to look further if you were interested...the fact is that no one knows...but we do know...and you should know that if the sun were dimmer, there isn't enough CO2 available on earth to bring it out of an ice age....So what brought the earth out....if not CO2...then what?

For someone who seems bright enough to have stellar critical thinking skills...when it comes to CO2 you seem to go dim...Do you really believe that a deep ice age could be brought to an end by atmospheric CO2? Really?

By the way...do we really have any data on our own sun from back then to support the current hypothesis? We have some snap shots in time of stars similar to our own, but we have a few hundred years of data on our own sun and that's it. Looking at other stars and making inferences to our own sun in its earlier years is really not telling us anything...it is storytelling and little more.

I did look around a bit. I saw nothing and I figured if you couldnt put forth a decent link then there was probably slim pickings to be found. prove me wrong.

and...when did I say 'Do you really believe that a deep ice age could be brought to an end by atmospheric CO2'. I make enough clear and detailed statements that you should be able to argue what I say rather than make shit up.

The pickings that "prove" the dim sun hypothesis are also pretty slim... why not just argue that there is a consensus?

 

[SSDD]

Empirical evidence exists that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and warms the planet. What's lacking here is any empirical evidence from you that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or that the greenhouse effect does not warm the planet. Despite decades of trying, you and yours have certainly found no alternative cause for the warming we've experienced.

Sorry, but it doesn't...empirical evidence exists that prove that CO2 absorbs and emits IR....that does not equal warming...no empirical evidence exists proving the claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to increase....Again....by your own words. people who make claims but don't produce the data to support those claims are just talking out of their asses...sucks to be held to your own standards....doesn't it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Empirical evidence exists that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and warms the planet. What's lacking here is any empirical evidence from you that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or that the greenhouse effect does not warm the planet. Despite decades of trying, you and yours have certainly found no alternative cause for the warming we've experienced.

You are a moron..

Now lets look at why you are a moron..

1. CO2 does indeed create a slowed (retarded) heat release in the lab as this model output shows.

That slowing of heat loss, is at the surface, due to the depth and composition of our atmosphere but it has other avenues to escape, unlike the lab experiments. Water vapor and convection is the primary route that defeats the CO2 effect.

2. Given the graph above and the rise in CO2 from 280ppm, we should have seen about 2 deg C of warming since 1750 but we have seen just 0.82 deg C of warming. The 'expected rise' is with just CO2 ALONE. No positive feedbacks were added.

Now what caused the amount of heat rise, in our atmosphere, to not correlate or be equal with empirical lab experiments? This is where you get the Moron award and why all modeling fails to date.

Water Vapor and clouds have acted as a negative forcing. The IPCC and others tell us that it must cause a positive response while ignoring the empirically observed evidence. This is also why our CO2 levels have risen and the last 18 years 9 months have seen no rise in global mean temps. The Models 'expect' a positive feedback, which is not common in earths atmospheric processes and systems.

If your hypothesis had any credibility at all, the increasing levels of CO2 should have generated a higher level of heat loss retardation. It has not. The convection cycle continues, unabated, to release heat and maintain systemic equilibrium resulting in no global rise.

What I find unethical are those who manipulated the empirical data to hide this inconvenient fact and continue to homogenize and infill with bogus numbers and generated falsifications of the historical records. The satellite records now show the falsifications VERY clearly.

The IPCC and the EPA have cut their own throats by stating that all warming prior to 1950 is natural variation and then stated that all warming post 1950 is man made. I am very interested in how they purportedly stopped natural variation. Given natural variation, the rise of 0.48 deg C since 1950 can be attributed totally to it, as it is exactly as the previous warming trend was.

SO tell me again where is that CO2 Signal?

 

[IanC]

Lame!!!! a two sentence description of a lecture! with no quantifications.

I figured you were bright enough to look further if you were interested...the fact is that no one knows...but we do know...and you should know that if the sun were dimmer, there isn't enough CO2 available on earth to bring it out of an ice age....So what brought the earth out....if not CO2...then what?

For someone who seems bright enough to have stellar critical thinking skills...when it comes to CO2 you seem to go dim...Do you really believe that a deep ice age could be brought to an end by atmospheric CO2? Really?

By the way...do we really have any data on our own sun from back then to support the current hypothesis? We have some snap shots in time of stars similar to our own, but we have a few hundred years of data on our own sun and that's it. Looking at other stars and making inferences to our own sun in its earlier years is really not telling us anything...it is storytelling and little more.

I did look around a bit. I saw nothing and I figured if you couldnt put forth a decent link then there was probably slim pickings to be found. prove me wrong.

and...when did I say 'Do you really believe that a deep ice age could be brought to an end by atmospheric CO2'. I make enough clear and detailed statements that you should be able to argue what I say rather than make shit up.

The pickings that "prove" the dim sun hypothesis are also pretty slim... why not just argue that there is a consensus?

there are lots of areas of new solar formation, young stars, middle-aged stars, old stars, and end-of-life stars to study. they suggest a typical progression from young to old which depends on the size.

you dont have to believe what the general consensus is, but so far you have given no evidence to overthrow it beyond a cryptic two sentence description of a lecture that was not even attached to a paper.

 

[Crick]

That slowing of heat loss, is at the surface, due to the depth and composition of our atmosphere but it has other avenues to escape, unlike the lab experiments. Water vapor and convection is the primary route that defeats the CO2 effect.

I'd like to hear - from the lips of a real atmospheric physicist scientist type person - how water vapor provides an escape route for IR absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you help me Billy Boy?

Oh! Wait... wait... I've got it. Water vapor is simply somewhere else that the IR could go when it leaves the CO2. I see. So it acts like every other component of the atmosphere and the Earth and the seas, absorbing the heat trapped and reradiated by CO2. I can see how that would have a distinct cooling effect...

NOT

PS: just an FYI for the atmospheric scientist: there is virtually ZERO water vapor in the upper stratosphere where IR trapped by CO2 finally escapes to space. The water vapor in the atmosphere simply increases the capacity of the atmospheric sink, raising equilibrium temperatures.

 

[IanC]

That slowing of heat loss, is at the surface, due to the depth and composition of our atmosphere but it has other avenues to escape, unlike the lab experiments. Water vapor and convection is the primary route that defeats the CO2 effect.

I'd like to hear - from the lips of a real atmospheric physicist scientist type person - how water vapor provides an escape route for IR absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you help me Billy Boy?

Oh! Wait... wait... I've got it. Water vapor is simply somewhere else that the IR could go when it leaves the CO2. I see. So it acts like every other component of the atmosphere and the Earth and the seas, absorbing the heat trapped and reradiated by CO2. I can see how that would have a distinct cooling effect...

NOT

PS: just an FYI for the atmospheric scientist: there is virtually ZERO water vapor in the upper stratosphere where IR trapped by CO2 finally escapes to space. The water vapor in the atmosphere simply increases the capacity of the atmospheric sink, raising equilibrium temperatures.

HAHAHAHAHHA

that's a whole lot of condescension coming from someone who thought wet air was heavier than dry air!

as a rough percentage, how much of the surface energy is carried aloft to the cloudtops by non radiative means?

 

[IanC]

BTW, anyone else is also welcome to answer that question.

bonus marks for
a. description of the largest fraction of radiation that leaves the surface and escapes
b. rough estimate of what is left over

(edit for clarity, we are talking about IR formed by the surface not reflected solar shortwave)

 

[Billy_Bob]

That slowing of heat loss, is at the surface, due to the depth and composition of our atmosphere but it has other avenues to escape, unlike the lab experiments. Water vapor and convection is the primary route that defeats the CO2 effect.

I'd like to hear - from the lips of a real atmospheric physicist scientist type person - how water vapor provides an escape route for IR absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you help me Billy Boy?

Oh! Wait... wait... I've got it. Water vapor is simply somewhere else that the IR could go when it leaves the CO2. I see. So it acts like every other component of the atmosphere and the Earth and the seas, absorbing the heat trapped and reradiated by CO2. I can see how that would have a distinct cooling effect...

NOT

PS: just an FYI for the atmospheric scientist: there is virtually ZERO water vapor in the upper stratosphere where IR trapped by CO2 finally escapes to space. The water vapor in the atmosphere simply increases the capacity of the atmospheric sink, raising equilibrium temperatures.

Other than being a condescending ass hole and totally clue less about the actual physics of the earths atmosphere, what do you have? You got nothing. Tell me again how the dry lapse rate and the convection lapse rates differ?

Crick gets PAWNED again by his own ignorance.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That slowing of heat loss, is at the surface, due to the depth and composition of our atmosphere but it has other avenues to escape, unlike the lab experiments. Water vapor and convection is the primary route that defeats the CO2 effect.

I'd like to hear - from the lips of a real atmospheric physicist scientist type person - how water vapor provides an escape route for IR absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you help me Billy Boy?

Oh! Wait... wait... I've got it. Water vapor is simply somewhere else that the IR could go when it leaves the CO2. I see. So it acts like every other component of the atmosphere and the Earth and the seas, absorbing the heat trapped and reradiated by CO2. I can see how that would have a distinct cooling effect...

NOT

PS: just an FYI for the atmospheric scientist: there is virtually ZERO water vapor in the upper stratosphere where IR trapped by CO2 finally escapes to space. The water vapor in the atmosphere simply increases the capacity of the atmospheric sink, raising equilibrium temperatures.

HAHAHAHAHHA

that's a whole lot of condescension coming from someone who thought wet air was heavier than dry air!

as a rough percentage, how much of the surface energy is carried aloft to the cloudtops by non radiative means?

IR is absorbed near surface by water. The convection cycle, which is not thwarted by CO2, then allows the rise and circulation of heat to the upper atmosphere, above where CO2 can thwart it, where it again becomes IR and is released to space. Most of earths heat is released in this manner near the equator and by direct IR release near the poles where the water vapor is near zero content and the atmosphere is 1/3 shorter in distance. (CO2 is also 20ppm lower above the poles than above the equator due to its molecular weight and is not well mixed in our atmosphere properties)

Convection accounts for about 67% of all heat released to space. Clouds reflective properties are about 21%. Other particulate matter, smoke, dust, etc account for the other 12%.

When you look at these basic numbers you can form what percentage of change would be required to change earths energy budget in terms of Watts/Meter ^2 at earths surface. When you consider that just 264 W/M^2 actually reaches earths surface, of the suns down-welling 1354 W/M^2 (TOA- Top Of Atmosphere), You will find that simple changes in cloud formation can remove any heat build up, at the surface, very easily through convection keeping the earth near equilibrium.

The natural heating and cooling of earths atmospheric particles causes the convection cycle to speed up and regulates the speed at which the cycle operates. CO2 can not impose itself to slow that cycle.

Source

Just a cursory look into the actual physics and physical operations of our atmosphere lay the AGW mantra waste. IF there is even a slight warming of the surface the convection cycle will increase until the imbalance is dealt with. That simple fact kills the Global warming meme. The earth has been stable within a 12 deg C range for millions of years, man is arrogant to think he is controlling/influencing anything by more than a very minuscule/insignificant degree..

 

[Billy_Bob]

BTW, anyone else is also welcome to answer that question.

bonus marks for
a. description of the largest fraction of radiation that leaves the surface and escapes
b. rough estimate of what is left over

(edit for clarity, we are talking about IR formed by the surface not reflected solar shortwave)

A. 83% of the suns energy is returned to space and never hits earths surface. Of the remaining energy hinting the earth it all returns to space at some point.

B. Of the remaining 17% of the suns energy getting to earths surface or near surface, there is nothing left over. It is either absorbed or released in the natural goal of all matter equalizing temperatures to 0 Kelvin (+2.3 deg K which is the temperature of space). Unlike others here i know there is no such thing as "excess heat".

 

[Crick]

BTW, anyone else is also welcome to answer that question.

bonus marks for
a. description of the largest fraction of radiation that leaves the surface and escapes
b. rough estimate of what is left over

(edit for clarity, we are talking about IR formed by the surface not reflected solar shortwave)

A. 83% of the suns energy is returned to space and never hits earths surface. Of the remaining energy hinting the earth it all returns to space at some point.

B. Of the remaining 17% of the suns energy getting to earths surface or near surface, there is nothing left over. It is either absorbed or released in the natural goal of all matter equalizing temperatures to 0 Kelvin (+2.3 deg K which is the temperature of space). Unlike others here i know there is no such thing as "excess heat".

PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT My Atmospheric Physicist. You've got the ******* albedo wrong and TURNED AROUND.
The Earth's albedo is 0.30. Seventy percent (70%) of the incoming radiation is ABSORBED. THIRTY PERCENT (30%) is reflected.

Too perfect for words.

 

[Crick]

Billy, don't you think maybe it's time to admit that you aren't a scientist and that you don't have a degree in atmospheric physics?

 

[Billy_Bob]

BTW, anyone else is also welcome to answer that question.

bonus marks for
a. description of the largest fraction of radiation that leaves the surface and escapes
b. rough estimate of what is left over

(edit for clarity, we are talking about IR formed by the surface not reflected solar shortwave)

A. 83% of the suns energy is returned to space and never hits earths surface. Of the remaining energy hinting the earth it all returns to space at some point.

B. Of the remaining 17% of the suns energy getting to earths surface or near surface, there is nothing left over. It is either absorbed or released in the natural goal of all matter equalizing temperatures to 0 Kelvin (+2.3 deg K which is the temperature of space). Unlike others here i know there is no such thing as "excess heat".

PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT My Atmospheric Physicist. You've got the ******* albedo wrong and TURNED AROUND.
The Earth's albedo is 0.30. Seventy percent (70%) of the incoming radiation is ABSORBED. THIRTY PERCENT (30%) is reflected.

Too perfect for words.

Too Funny;

You dont even understand how much solar radiation actually makes it to the planets surface. Of that radiation that does make it to planet earths surface 70% is absorbed. But then again you failed at math 70% of 17% is what again?

You dont even understand the arguments basic tenets.

 

[Kosh]

BTW, anyone else is also welcome to answer that question.

bonus marks for
a. description of the largest fraction of radiation that leaves the surface and escapes
b. rough estimate of what is left over

(edit for clarity, we are talking about IR formed by the surface not reflected solar shortwave)

The magnetic field of the planet has more control over climate than CO2..

 

[IanC]

Trenberth's cartoon is good enough for our purposes.

165W solar shortwave reaches and warms the surface.

100W is carried past the surface bottleneck by convection and latent heat.

40W escapes directly through the 'atmospheric window' at wavelengths that do not interact with the atmosphere's constituents.

That leaves 25W which migrates through the lower atmosphere and various GHGs.

Increasing GHGs like CO2 and methane makes it more difficult for that 25W to get through. Increasing the most important GHG, water vapour, shunts more energy into convection/latent heat.

It is easy to see how CO2 interferes with radiation escape. It is not so clear why increased water vapour supposedly triples the effect of CO2 when water vapour via convection/latent heat is already doing the lion's share of transporting energy away from the surface.