GLOBAL WARMING? NASA says Antarctic has been COOLING for past

[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)

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

that could very well be true but we are looking at reasons for warming (or not warming) at the present. do you have a paper that gives evidence of changes in the magnetic field and a possible link to changes in climate?

it is all well to say things are important. eg SSDD thinks atmospheric density and pressure are important for surface temperature, and they are. but he has not shown how the pressure has changed, or linked it to the recent change in temperatures (100 years).

 

[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..

that could very well be true but we are looking at reasons for warming (or not warming) at the present. do you have a paper that gives evidence of changes in the magnetic field and a possible link to changes in climate?

it is all well to say things are important. eg SSDD thinks atmospheric density and pressure are important for surface temperature, and they are. but he has not shown how the pressure has changed, or linked it to the recent change in temperatures (100 years).

It is no secret that without the magnetic field the Earth would be a large ball of fire before the solar winds stripped away the atmosphere. Then we would look a lot like Mars. BTW: Mars atmosphere is 95.97% CO2. According to the AGW theory that means Mars should be a ball of fire..

The Earth's magnetic field have been fluctuating and decreasing over the past 150 years. The super heated plasma expelled from the sun gets concentrated at the poles which can explain the ice loss and as the magnetic field fluctuates in strength it can explain why the ice grows and shrinks..

Also in order for the Earth to rise in temperature at significant levels (like the AGW cult predicts) the warming would have to be higher in the atmosphere to support such warming. The warming has been much closer to the surface. Which shows that more super heated plasma form the sun is making it to the surface of the Earth. The one year where Moscow was almost 20F warmer than every where else, was due to a hole in the magnetic field.

Here is a paper that talks about the SUn's megntic field and it's influence on climate:

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-CdeJ-HN-Sun-climate-NS-5-1112.pdf

There are many hundreds of papers on the subject, many of them are not AGW approved as they would defeat the whole CO2 controls climate theory.

Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-magnetic-field-important-climate.html
Does the Earth's Magnetic Field Influence Climate?

You have to remember that the AGW cult is now on a quest to prove that the Medieval Warm period did not exist..

Earth’s magnetic field is collapsing and it is affecting the climate
Posted on March 22, 2014 by T.Niazi
At the time I researched the topic back in 2008 and released the book in 2009, most published papers spoke of a 10% drop in the strength of the Magnetic Field. The field has weakened by 5% over the period 1850-1970 and an additional collapse of 5% took place in the period 1970-2000. Now it seems that in the last decade the Magnetic field has weakened by another 5% in the last decade. Not only a drop of 15% in total but the collapse seems to be accelerating. Although the Mail Online article asks the reader to forget about global warming but the opposite should be the case since I believe that, the Global Warming and the Magnetic field weakening are two sides of the same coin. In my research on Earth Temperature page of this site, a direct link is established between the strength of the Magnetic field in the Thermosphere layer of the Atmosphere (100 – 700 km above surface) and the temperature variation on the surface of Earth. Simply put, the weaker the Magnetic field gets, the higher the thermal radiation at the Thermosphere layer. The entrapment of Sun’s charged particles, such as Protons, by the Magnetic field causes the Protons to travel at a high speed along the Magnetic field force lines. The collisions of some of those Protons with the low density air gases in the Thermosphere region such as Oxygen and Nitrogen produce heat that ranges from 500 degree Celsius above the magnetic poles to 2000 degree Celsius above the mid distance between the magnetic poles, or the magnetic equator. The collapse of the magnetic field force lines invites such Protons to travel faster between the two poles; at a maximum speed at mid-point and at a minimum speed above the Poles where Protons slow down and reach lower altitude causing the Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis lights. More energy is produced from collisions at higher speeds of such Protons with air molecules. Accordingly higher thermal radiation gets to the surface of Earth, causing Global Warming to occur.

Earth's magnetic field is collapsing and it is affecting the climate

Earth Magnetic Field

 

[IanC]

What can I say? Good job Kosh. Here is another area that needs more investigation. It also ties in with Shiriv's work on cosmic rays affecting cloud cover.

There is certainly more to climate than just CO2.

 

[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.

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.

I'm the one who has an actual college degree and who actually took and passed a number of physics class. You're the one with the fantasy life.

 

[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)

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.

I'm the one who has an actual college degree and who actually took and passed a number of physics class. You're the one with the fantasy life.

Oh not these lies again!

 

[Kosh]

What can I say? Good job Kosh. Here is another area that needs more investigation. It also ties in with Shiriv's work on cosmic rays affecting cloud cover.

There is certainly more to climate than just CO2.

Certainly there is more to look at than just CO2, but if we do that we may find out that CO2 has nothing to do with anything here.

That is why all research must be AGW approved or it is not allowed..

 

[SSDD]

Increasing GHGs like CO2 and methane makes it more difficult for that 25W to get through.

If that were true, a tropospheric hot spot would be inevitable....increased CO2 would cause it to become warmer...clearly, outside of failed climate models...it aint happening...

It is easy to see how CO2 interferes with radiation escape.

Easy to see in climate models....impossible to see in the real world....you luke warmers are just as gone as full blown warmers in this....you believe in the magic even though CO2 continues to climb and the inevitable hot spot never appears....you make me think of Charlie Brown sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the Great Pumpkin...what? Sooner or later you think it is going to show up? It aint gong to happen Ian...CO2 does not cause warming..

 

[SSDD]

What can I say? Good job Kosh. Here is another area that needs more investigation. It also ties in with Shiriv's work on cosmic rays affecting cloud cover.

There is certainly more to climate than just CO2.

Certainly there is more to look at than just CO2, but if we do that we may find out that CO2 has nothing to do with anything here.

That is why all research must be AGW approved or it is not allowed..

May? Anyone with any critical thinking skills already knows that CO2 has nothing to do with temperature...only those who believe failed climate models and unproven, unobservable, untestable mathematical models still hold out hope that CO2 does "something" besides usher CO2 out of the troposphere more quickly than convection.

 

[IanC]

Increasing GHGs like CO2 and methane makes it more difficult for that 25W to get through.

If that were true, a tropospheric hot spot would be inevitable....increased CO2 would cause it to become warmer...clearly, outside of failed climate models...it aint happening...

It is easy to see how CO2 interferes with radiation escape.

Easy to see in climate models....impossible to see in the real world....you luke warmers are just as gone as full blown warmers in this....you believe in the magic even though CO2 continues to climb and the inevitable hot spot never appears....you make me think of Charlie Brown sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the Great Pumpkin...what? Sooner or later you think it is going to show up? It aint gong to happen Ian...CO2 does not cause warming..

The average surface temp is 15C. That works out to about 400W of radiation. If all that radiation simply escaped into space freely we would cool dramatically because only 160 W is coming in. Of course there would be less albedo effect with no clouds but there would still be a large deficit. There is no way of supporting current temps without the greenhouse effect.

 

[SSDD]

Increasing GHGs like CO2 and methane makes it more difficult for that 25W to get through.

If that were true, a tropospheric hot spot would be inevitable....increased CO2 would cause it to become warmer...clearly, outside of failed climate models...it aint happening...

It is easy to see how CO2 interferes with radiation escape.

Easy to see in climate models....impossible to see in the real world....you luke warmers are just as gone as full blown warmers in this....you believe in the magic even though CO2 continues to climb and the inevitable hot spot never appears....you make me think of Charlie Brown sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the Great Pumpkin...what? Sooner or later you think it is going to show up? It aint gong to happen Ian...CO2 does not cause warming..

The average surface temp is 15C. That works out to about 400W of radiation. If all that radiation simply escaped into space freely we would cool dramatically because only 160 W is coming in. Of course there would be less albedo effect with no clouds but there would still be a large deficit. There is no way of supporting current temps without the greenhouse effect.

If the greenhouse effect worked as you and climate science claim, then increased CO2 would result in increased warming......it isn't happening...

And you can call the atmospheric thermal effect a greenhouse effect as you like, but we both know that the greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not an accurate description of what is actually happening.....Even you are lowering your claims of climate sensitivity to CO2....a few years ago you were saying 1.2 degrees...now you are saying 1 degree on the high side....in a few years, you will be below half a degree...and in a few more, you will lose faith in the magic and be at zero where I have always been....I will be waiting at the right answer for you....and I will ask what took you so long.

 

[skookerasbil]

cOoLiNg

yuk....yuk........notice the level of angst in the posts of the AGW nutters in this thread??!! The anger and misery smack you square in the face......before you laugh your balls off!!!!!!!

cOoLiNg

 

[Crick]

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.

Like any other GHG, water vapor has no directionality. The reason energy tends to leave the surface is its radiative escape at the ToA. And, as you know. water vapor has virtually NO involvement in that final step.

 

[Crick]

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.

Everyone understands now that you do not have a degree in atmospheric physics and very likely not even the mail order certificate in meteorology you claim. Everyone here understands that you have demonstrably and repeatedly lied about your qualifications. That is what is understood.

 

[SSDD]

I'm the one who has an actual college degree and who actually took and passed a number of physics class. You're the one with the fantasy life.

Right...the fake engineer who has proven over and over and over and over that he can't read and understand even a simple graph....you are laughable crick...absolutely laughable.

 

[IanC]

Like any other GHG, water vapor has no directionality. The reason energy tends to leave the surface is its radiative escape at the ToA. And, as you know. water vapor has virtually NO involvement in that final step.

That's it, crick? That's your rebuttal?

WV has no directionality? What is that supposed to mean? What is the important point?

I said the surface boundary has difficulty shedding energy via radiation therefore the majority leaves by convection/latent heat. Trenberth's cartoon shows this distinctly. Do I have to explain to you how evaporation cools the surface, then both warms and lightens the air which initiates convection? Again?

WV then forms clouds which reflect solar, and then releases the transported energy when precipitation is formed. Don't take my word for it, check the measured Planck curve and see how much energy is released at 273K where WV condenses.

Trenberth's cartoon shows 40W leaving the surface through the atmospheric window, then another tranch of 30W leaving the cloudtop boundary. The rest leaves as the atmosphere becomes progressively thinner and is unable to recapture emissions before they escape into space.

Your belief that radiation is the only means of energy transport is faulty, although it is true that the final escape is always via radiation.

WV acts like a refrigerator at the surface, pumping out energy to heights where it can more easily escape. That is why I scoff at the ridiculous notion that WV triples the effect of CO2.

 

[SSDD]

WV acts like a refrigerator at the surface, pumping out energy to heights where it can more easily escape. That is why I scoff at the ridiculous notion that WV triples the effect of CO2.

And CO2 acts like a cobweb in the corner of an abandoned house...doing nothing at all....but perhaps providing fodder for horror stories.

 

[IanC]

WV acts like a refrigerator at the surface, pumping out energy to heights where it can more easily escape. That is why I scoff at the ridiculous notion that WV triples the effect of CO2.

And CO2 acts like a cobweb in the corner of an abandoned house...doing nothing at all....but perhaps providing fodder for horror stories.

OK, then prove to me that the 15 micron IR emitted at the surface doesn't get absorbed. The Planck curve looking down has a big chunk missing at 15 microns, where did it go? If that ~35W escaped directly into space, as it would if there was no CO2, would the surface cool or not? Be specific.

 

[Muhammed]

I don't think NASA has existed long enough to make any sort of judgment concerning this issue.

And furthermore, most of NASA's employees today are not very intelligent.

 

[SSDD]

OK, then prove to me that the 15 micron IR emitted at the surface doesn't get absorbed. The Planck curve looking down has a big chunk missing at 15 microns, where did it go? If that ~35W escaped directly into space, as it would if there was no CO2, would the surface cool or not? Be specific.

You sound as goofy as crick...absorption and emission do not equal warming....if, as you believe, CO2 slows down the escape of heat from the atmosphere, then more CO2 would result in more warming...it is not happening....how dense do you have to be to not see that? If the greenhouse effect worked as you believe, then a steadily warming hot spot in the troposphere would be inevitable so long as CO2 kept increasing....CO2 is increasing..but the steadily warming hot spot due to the magic you believe in is conspicuously absent....do all the mental gymnastics and gyrations you care to...mentally masturbate to the numbers till you go blind...but the steadily warming hot spot in the troposphere which would be the INEVITABLE result of a greenhouse effect that operates on by the magic you believe in simply is not there....The fact is, Ian, that simple observation proves you wrong...wrong as you can be and still you refuse to believe your eyes.

 

[IanC]

Ducking the question I see. Typical.

You said CO2 does nothing. There is ample evidence to show it obstructs certain wavelengths of IR that are emitted by the surface, and would escape freely without the presence of CO2.

You say the absence of a hotspot proves my point invalid. It disproves CAGW modelling but it certainly doesn't disprove my contention that any extra surface energy retained by more CO2 is simply shunted into the convection/latent heat pathway. (A small amount of warming is inevitable otherwise that energy would ALREADY be using alternative pathways). I think the theoretical ~1C/doubling influence of CO2 will be found to be reduced by other factors but the climate sensitivity is still being found to be close to that number even though it has steadily declined over the last decade now that data from reality is being used rather than just climate models.