2014 hottest year on record

[ClimbnSink]

If MMGW is a hoax then the scientists in the 1970's warning of a manmade ice age must be correct. Oh noz the oceans are going to freeze, banana prices are going to skyrocket, quick tax something.

 

[docmirror]

Just for ****s and giggles, I found a sun exposure calc online and looked up where the conf is;

Lima Peru, Dec 8-12. Starting elevation -2.05deg N on 8th, ending elevation -1.56deg N on the 12th.

http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php

Of course, they could have made it ~ exactly overhead if they waited until Dec 20th, but no -- some of the attendees have to leave for ski trips, xmas vacation in Aruba, etc.

Recalls that last time they had some MMGW goings on and the ship got stuck in the ice! The UN made sure that faux pas wasn't going to happen again. And - sure as hell, no one wanted to go to Ecuador in late June.

Coinkeedink? You be the judge, no presuming going on here...

 

[Florida Cracker]

I recall when the same liberals that are screeching about the fake mmgw bull****, were the same ones that claimed that al gore was a modern day prophet.

The hockey stick I can find is at Dick's Sporting Goods, so the whole racket is still changing to fit the financial need, instead of the facts, I see.

 

[write-stuff]

If MMGW is a hoax then the scientists in the 1970's warning of a manmade ice age must be correct. Oh noz the oceans are going to freeze, banana prices are going to skyrocket, quick tax something.

This one has been covered before. The 70s Ice Age deal was never a widely held scientific belief. It was primarily a product of media hype.

 

[ClimbnSink]

This one has been covered before. The 70s Ice Age deal was never a widely held scientific belief. It was primarily a product of media hype.

Same as this one then.

 

[Gary F]

So that's what you found when you Googled for something to refute what he said. Nice cherry picking. And note that I'm not denigrating the report you listed. It's thought provoking and comes from a good, unbiased source. Just noticing that you start with a bias then go look specifically for evidence that seems to support your bias.

It turns out that this article doesn't really support your implication after all.

Here's some more interesting stuff from the article you cited.

"Scientists are not sure what caused these abrupt increases, during which C02 levels rose about 10-15 parts per million – or about 5 percent per episode – over a period of 1-2 centuries. It likely was a combination of factors, they say, including ocean circulation, changing wind patterns, and terrestrial processes."

No kidding. The truth is that climate scientists have only scratched the surface when it comes to comprehending the factors involved let alone how they interact. This is an extremely complicated system that defies understanding. The only thing they are certain of is that change is caused by human activity, always has adverse consequences and is a useful tool for statists to deprive us of liberty and tax dollars.

Yea I Googled it. I don't have time to find the better reference I was searching for. Now I gotta get back to work.

 

[vintage cessna]

This one has been covered before. The 70s Ice Age deal was never a widely held scientific belief. It was primarily a product of media hype.

Just a small challenge in the interest of discussion. Could you, or any other believer in MMGW, explain how the "Greenhouse Effect" is suppose to work on Earth? Just the basic workings and CO2's role.

I ask, because there seems to be two camps. Scientist who say there is no Greenhouse Effect, or if there is, it is so small as to not matter. In the pro Greenhouse camp, it exists, but no "consensus" on how it works. I found that to be quite odd.

 

[write-stuff]

Just a small challenge in the interest of discussion. Could you, or any other believer in MMGW, explain how the "Greenhouse Effect" is suppose to work on Earth? Just the basic workings and CO2's role.

I ask, because there seems to be two camps. Scientist who say there is no Greenhouse Effect, or if there is, it is so small as to not matter. In the pro Greenhouse camp, it exists, but no "consensus" on how it works. I found that to be quite odd.

Sure, this is a pretty simplistic explanation:
https://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

And you say there are two camps in the scientific community regarding the greenhouse effect? Really? I never heard that. There are always outliers in the mix, but I was under the impression that most physicists, biologists, and chemists understood the greenhouse effect and how it works. It's really not that complicated.

 

[LDJones]

(1) Observable loss of glaciation
(2) Measurable rise in sea level
(3) Measurable upward trend in atmospheric temperature
(4) Measurable upward trend in deep ocean temperature
(5) Measurable change is ocean chemistry

NONE of those metrics have shown anything close to a dramatic up-tick....certainly nothing in proportion to the CO2 rise. All have been occurring since the Little Ice Age, with varying ebbs and flows with the natural variation in temps.

 

[azure]

So we should have seen a really dramatic up-tick in temps if CO2 is the major driver, right?

Where's the up-tick?

This has all been hashed out before. There has been a significant (if not "really dramatic") uptick in global temperatures starting in the 3rd quarter of the 20th century. The data are there and have been published widely. Unfortunately many people now refuse to believe the data and hide behind Climategate and (wishful) thinking that it's all fabricated to justify that disbelief. There is little room for discussion if people insist that the evidence is fake. And that's the real tragedy of Climategate, that because of a few scientists behaving badly, the general public now considers the whole field suspect.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...609140980?nk=c8dff3b4eef4949a6fe4f37ac664611f

Not sure why you posted that link. If it was supposed to imply that the fact that scientists don't fully understand the recent apparent slowdown in temperature rise means that AGW is in serious doubt, then go back and read it more carefully. Estimates of climate sensitivity to increased CO2 have always had fairly large error bars. And CO2 has always been only part of the picture - along with gaseous emissions come particulates, which act on temps in the opposite direction by reducing the amount of solar energy reaching the surface. Volcanoes also have the same effect. There are always going to be natural fluctuations. I could point you to Stefan Rahmstorf's analysis of the recent slowdown, where he concludes that the warming during the slowdown is not significantly less (in the statistical sense) than the multi-decadal warming trend that started in the 1970s. But what would be the point if you consider the source corrupt? (Rahmstorf is part of the RealClimate group.)

The slowdown MIGHT mean that other factors are in play of equal importance to the greenhouse effect that could throw the climate system in unexpected directions. The problem is, it's too soon to say. And as the article states, global temps in the 2000-2010 decade are still about 1C above what they were a century ago.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Shouldn't water vapor be a greenhouse gas?

 

[vintage cessna]

Sure, this is a pretty simplistic explanation:
https://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

And you say there are two camps in the scientific community regarding the greenhouse effect? Really? I never heard that. There are always outliers in the mix, but I was under the impression that most physicists, biologists, and chemists understood the greenhouse effect and how it works. It's really not that complicated.

That is the most prevelent view, which is how people use to think a real greenhouse worked, the glass absorbed infrared radiation and re-radiated it back to interior of the greenhouse. That was disproved by an experiment in 1909 when it was shown that greenhouses warn up because convective cooling is blocked by the roof of a greenhouse and had nothing to do with re-radiation. The scientist built two greenhouses, one with a glass roof, ( glass absorbs infrared) and one with a roof made of clear salt ( does not absorb infared) . Both houses reached the same temperature. No additional rise in temp from any supposed re-radiation. Thick night time clouds have the same effect as the roof of a greenhouse in that they inhibit convective cooling, as we all notice in our daily lives.

Now a lot of scientist who are pro MMGW are aware of this, they are also aware of the Second Law of Thermodynamics , which simply stated,heat transfers from a warm body(Earth) to a cold body (atmosphere) and never from cold to warm. I have seen a lot of elaborate work around and very convoluted explanations, because they know the reference you gave is a fairy tale.

 

[vintage cessna]

Shouldn't water vapor be a greenhouse gas?

Water is the biggy. Remember we talk about CO2 concentrations in parts per Million, not enough to do anything by itself. But by raising CO2 and increasing temp ever so much will lead to more evaporation and more water vapor in the atmosphere and a compounding disaterous cycle is established. All of the computer models have predicted a tropical hot spot in the atmosphere from increased water vapor , which should have happened long ago.

 

[LDJones]

TAnd as the article states, global temps in the 2000-2010 decade are still about 1C above what they were a century ago.

Yes, and we're about 4 deg. over the bottom of the Little Ice Age. Thankfully we've been warming our way out of that one. I still haven't found the cause for alarm.

 

[Gary F]

Yes, and we're about 4 deg. over the bottom of the Little Ice Age. Thankfully we've been warming our way out of that one. I still haven't found the cause for alarm.

If we go along as usual we will all suffer horrible consequences. If we do exactly what Kerry and Al Gore tell us to do (while they live a monstrous carbon footprint lifestyle) we will have environmental salvation. Wait a minute. It seems they have a lot in common with televangelists.

 

[LDJones]

If we go along as usual we will all suffer horrible consequences. If we do exactly what Kerry and Al Gore tell us to do (while they live a monstrous carbon footprint lifestyle) we will have environmental salvation. Wait a minute. It seems they have a lot in common with televangelists.

The biggest difference is Gore and Kerry don't send you any of their books or other incentives in exchange for you giving up your money.

 

[Norman]

If we go along as usual we will all suffer horrible consequences. If we do exactly what Kerry and Al Gore tell us to do (while they live a monstrous carbon footprint lifestyle) we will have environmental salvation. Wait a minute. It seems they have a lot in common with televangelists.

Bingo!

 

[Norman]

This has all been hashed out before. There has been a significant (if not "really dramatic") uptick in global temperatures starting in the 3rd quarter of the 20th century.

Can you show raw, uncompensated data to prove that?

Unfortunately many people now refuse to believe the data and hide behind Climategate and (wishful) thinking that it's all fabricated to justify that disbelief. There is little room for discussion if people insist that the evidence is fake. And that's the real tragedy of Climategate, that because of a few scientists behaving badly, the general public now considers the whole field suspect.

Suspect only because it has become so politicized and shoved down unwilling throats. Virtually all skeptics feel there is political gain to be had by those doing the shoving.

 

[azure]

Just a small challenge in the interest of discussion. Could you, or any other believer in MMGW, explain how the "Greenhouse Effect" is suppose to work on Earth? Just the basic workings and CO2's role.

In the simplest terms I know without sacrificing scientific accuracy: all objects radiate EM radiation with a characteristic spectrum that depends on their temperature (this is called "thermal radiation"). There are two main laws governing thermal radiation:

1. Stefan-Boltzman law, which says that the total energy flux from the surface is proportional to T^4 where T is the absolute temperature (in K). As temperature rises, the total energy given off goes up as T^4 -- i.e. the 4th power of T, in other words very rapidly.

2. Wien's displacement law, which says that the wavelength at which the thermal radiation spectrum peaks is inversely proportional to T - the warmer an object is, the shorter the wavelength of the bulk of its radiant output.

Sunlight is almost entirely thermal radiation at about 5800 K. The Sun's spectrum peaks at wavelengths between about 0.3 um and 0.7 um, which is what we call visible light, and our atmosphere is mostly transparent to radiation in that range of wavelengths. The energy that reaches the surface and is not reflected is absorbed by the surface, warming it. The surface doesn't warm indefinitely because it also gives off thermal radiation. The warmer it is the faster it radiates (S-B law), so it reaches equilibrium when energy out equals energy in. That equilibrium determines a planet's surface temperature.

By Wien's law the radiation from the surface of a planet like Earth peaks in the infrared around 10 um. Gases like CO2 absorb such longer wavelength radiation very readily and then re-radiate it in all directions. Some of that radiation goes out into space, some of it goes back down towards the surface. The effect is to reduce the net flux of energy out from the surface so it warms until it is radiating fast enough (by S-B) to balance the net incoming flux, i.e. it reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature than if the CO2 weren't there.

The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more the outgoing radiation from the surface is absorbed and re-radiated and the more the outgoing flux is reduced for a given temperature, pushing the equilibrium surface temperature higher.

The basic physics behind the greenhouse effect has been known and understood in general terms for more than 100 years, though it's only in the last 40-50 years that the nitty gritty details have been worked out in terms of radiative + convective transfer of energy through the atmosphere.

CO2 is by no means the only or even the strongest greenhouse gas - in fact the effect due to H20 is even stronger because there is so much more of it in the atmosphere, but the atmosphere is more efficient at getting rid of excess H20 than CO2, which stays around a lot longer.

I ask, because there seems to be two camps. Scientist who say there is no Greenhouse Effect, or if there is, it is so small as to not matter. In the pro Greenhouse camp, it exists, but no "consensus" on how it works. I found that to be quite odd.

There is a small (at least, I think it's small) community of scientists who try to poke holes in the physics because either they don't want to believe that this effect is real, or they are hung up on the term "Greenhouse Effect" and (correctly) realize that this isn't really the way a greenhouse works - absorption/reradiation by the glass is not a significant reason why greenhouses are warmer than the outside, which has more to do with reducing heat loss due to convection.

(Edit: I see you mentioned that in a later post - yes, I believe that experiment was done by someone named Woods. I don't think you're right that most scientists who believe in AGW are unaware of this - they may be unaware of the actual experiment, but I doubt there is anyone in the field who doesn't know that the atmosphere doesn't work exactly the way a real greenhouse does. It's just an unfortunate name that has caught on, but no one - I am fairly certain - thinks of it in that literal a way.)

 

[Gary F]

In the simplest terms I know without sacrificing scientific accuracy: all objects radiate EM radiation with a characteristic spectrum that depends on their temperature (this is called "thermal radiation"). There are two main laws governing thermal radiation:

1. Stefan-Boltzman law, which says that the total energy flux from the surface is proportional to T^4 where T is the absolute temperature (in K). As temperature rises, the total energy given off goes up as T^4 -- i.e. the 4th power of T, in other words very rapidly.

2. Wien's displacement law, which says that the wavelength at which the thermal radiation spectrum peaks is inversely proportional to T - the warmer an object is, the shorter the wavelength of the bulk of its radiant output.

Sunlight is almost entirely thermal radiation at about 5800 K. The Sun's spectrum peaks at wavelengths between about 0.3 um and 0.7 um, which is what we call visible light, and our atmosphere is mostly transparent to radiation in that range of wavelengths. The energy that reaches the surface and is not reflected is absorbed by the surface, warming it. The surface doesn't warm indefinitely because it also gives off thermal radiation. The warmer it is the faster it radiates (S-B law), so it reaches equilibrium when energy out equals energy in. That equilibrium determines a planet's surface temperature.

By Wien's law the radiation from the surface of a planet like Earth peaks in the infrared around 10 um. Gases like CO2 absorb such longer wavelength radiation very readily and then re-radiate it in all directions. Some of that radiation goes out into space, some of it goes back down towards the surface. The effect is to reduce the net flux of energy out from the surface so it warms until it is radiating fast enough (by S-B) to balance the net incoming flux, i.e. it reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature than if the CO2 weren't there.

The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more the outgoing radiation from the surface is absorbed and re-radiated and the more the outgoing flux is reduced for a given temperature, pushing the equilibrium surface temperature higher.

The basic physics behind the greenhouse effect has been known and understood in general terms for more than 100 years, though it's only in the last 40-50 years that the nitty gritty details have been worked out in terms of radiative + convective transfer of energy through the atmosphere.

CO2 is by no means the only or even the strongest greenhouse gas - in fact the effect due to H20 is even stronger because there is so much more of it in the atmosphere, but the atmosphere is more efficient at getting rid of excess H20 than CO2, which stays around a lot longer.

There is a small (at least, I think it's small) community of scientists who try to poke holes in the physics because either they don't want to believe that this effect is real, or they are hung up on the term "Greenhouse Effect" and (correctly) realize that this isn't really the way a greenhouse works - absorption/reradiation by the glass is not a significant reason why greenhouses are warmer than the outside, which has more to do with reducing heat loss due to convection.

(Edit: I see you mentioned that in a later post - yes, I believe that experiment was done by someone named Woods. I don't think you're right that most scientists who believe in AGW are unaware of this - they may be unaware of the actual experiment, but I doubt there is anyone in the field who doesn't know that the atmosphere doesn't work exactly the way a real greenhouse does. It's just an unfortunate name that has caught on, but no one - I am fairly certain - thinks of it in that literal a way.)

Oh Kay. Although I have not scrutinized everything above it seems reasonable. Now please explain all the factors that determine the temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloud cover at any given point in the atmosphere.

 

[azure]

Now a lot of scientist who are pro MMGW are aware of this, they are also aware of the Second Law of Thermodynamics , which simply stated,heat transfers from a warm body(Earth) to a cold body (atmosphere) and never from cold to warm. I have seen a lot of elaborate work around and very convoluted explanations, because they know the reference you gave is a fairy tale.

The 2nd Law forbids NET transfer of energy from a cold body to a warm body. That is what heat transfer is. It doesn't forbid a warmer body from absorbing radiation from a colder one. The net energy flow will still be from warm to cold because the warmer body radiates more energy than the colder one.

Same thing on the Earth. There is no transfer of heat from the (cooler) upper atmosphere to the surface. The NET energy flow is still from warmer to cooler. The "greenhouse effect" just forces the surface to equilibrate at a higher temperature by reducing the outgoing flux.

 

[vintage cessna]

The 2nd Law forbids NET transfer of energy from a cold body to a warm body. That is what heat transfer is. It doesn't forbid a warmer body from absorbing radiation from a colder one. The net energy flow will still be from warm to cold because the warmer body radiates more energy than the colder one.

Same thing on the Earth. There is no transfer of heat from the (cooler) upper atmosphere to the surface. The NET energy flow is still from warmer to cooler. The "greenhouse effect" just forces the surface to equilibrate at a higher temperature by reducing the outgoing flux.

Yep. That is the same convuleted thinking ,where radiation and heat transfer are mixed, that the two German physicists you refuse to read destroyed. Of course they were published in an obscure publication because the gang was suppressing dissenting views at the time of publication.

 

[vintage cessna]

The 2nd Law forbids NET transfer of energy from a cold body to a warm body. That is what heat transfer is. It doesn't forbid a warmer body from absorbing radiation from a colder one. The net energy flow will still be from warm to cold because the warmer body radiates more energy than the colder one.

Same thing on the Earth. There is no transfer of heat from the (cooler) upper atmosphere to the surface. The NET energy flow is still from warmer to cooler. The "greenhouse effect" just forces the surface to equilibrate at a higher temperature by reducing the outgoing flux.

Explain why, in the Wood experiment , the Glass greenhouse didn't rise to a higher temp than the salt greenhouse. The glass absorbs and re-emits radiation while the salt does not.

 

[vintage cessna]

In the simplest terms I know without sacrificing scientific accuracy: all objects radiate EM radiation with a characteristic spectrum that depends on their temperature (this is called "thermal radiation"). There are two main laws governing thermal radiation:

1. Stefan-Boltzman law, which says that the total energy flux from the surface is proportional to T^4 where T is the absolute temperature (in K). As temperature rises, the total energy given off goes up as T^4 -- i.e. the 4th power of T, in other words very rapidly.

2. Wien's displacement law, which says that the wavelength at which the thermal radiation spectrum peaks is inversely proportional to T - the warmer an object is, the shorter the wavelength of the bulk of its radiant output.

Sunlight is almost entirely thermal radiation at about 5800 K. The Sun's spectrum peaks at wavelengths between about 0.3 um and 0.7 um, which is what we call visible light, and our atmosphere is mostly transparent to radiation in that range of wavelengths. The energy that reaches the surface and is not reflected is absorbed by the surface, warming it. The surface doesn't warm indefinitely because it also gives off thermal radiation. The warmer it is the faster it radiates (S-B law), so it reaches equilibrium when energy out equals energy in. That equilibrium determines a planet's surface temperature.

By Wien's law the radiation from the surface of a planet like Earth peaks in the infrared around 10 um. Gases like CO2 absorb such longer wavelength radiation very readily and then re-radiate it in all directions. Some of that radiation goes out into space, some of it goes back down towards the surface. The effect is to reduce the net flux of energy out from the surface so it warms until it is radiating fast enough (by S-B) to balance the net incoming flux, i.e. it reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature than if the CO2 weren't there.

The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more the outgoing radiation from the surface is absorbed and re-radiated and the more the outgoing flux is reduced for a given temperature, pushing the equilibrium surface temperature higher.

The basic physics behind the greenhouse effect has been known and understood in general terms for more than 100 years, though it's only in the last 40-50 years that the nitty gritty details have been worked out in terms of radiative + convective transfer of energy through the atmosphere.

CO2 is by no means the only or even the strongest greenhouse gas - in fact the effect due to H20 is even stronger because there is so much more of it in the atmosphere, but the atmosphere is more efficient at getting rid of excess H20 than CO2, which stays around a lot longer.

There is a small (at least, I think it's small) community of scientists who try to poke holes in the physics because either they don't want to believe that this effect is real, or they are hung up on the term "Greenhouse Effect" and (correctly) realize that this isn't really the way a greenhouse works - absorption/reradiation by the glass is not a significant reason why greenhouses are warmer than the outside, which has more to do with reducing heat loss due to convection.

(Edit: I see you mentioned that in a later post - yes, I believe that experiment was done by someone named Woods. I don't think you're right that most scientists who believe in AGW are unaware of this - they may be unaware of the actual experiment, but I doubt there is anyone in the field who doesn't know that the atmosphere doesn't work exactly the way a real greenhouse does. It's just an unfortunate name that has caught on, but no one - I am fairly certain - thinks of it in that literal a way.)

I said they ARE aware of the Woods experiment. That's why we have your very complex explanation of the Greenhouse Effect today. It reminds me of the complex celestial models of the solar system that had the Earth and not the Sun at the center.

 

[vintage cessna]

The climate, primarily the temperatures, just won't behave the way the theory predicts. At some point you have to give it up, and say everything thing makes sense if you toss the theory. Unless of course, there are other motives.

 

[N801BH]

I said they ARE aware of the Woods experiment. That's why we have your very complex explanation of the Greenhouse Effect today. It reminds me of the complex celestial models of the solar system that had the Earth and not the Sun at the center.

yeah,,, But..... That was back when the earth was flat........

 

[azure]

Explain why, in the Wood experiment , the Glass greenhouse didn't rise to a higher temp than the salt greenhouse. The glass absorbs and re-emits radiation while the salt does not.

I really don't know why Wood (or Woods?) got the results he did. I'm not aware that he ever described his setup in enough detail to allow replication. One explanation that's been proposed is that the effect of warming from IR absorption by the glass was canceled out by enhanced convective heat transfer from the outside surface of the glass, so little of the absorbed energy found its way back into the greenhouse. I don't find that explanation particularly convincing. OTOH, I've also read that there have been more recent attempts to repeat the experiment that have gotten the opposite results - the glass greenhouse does indeed get warmer than the salt greenhouse.

So it might depend on the environment too. Convective exchange with the outside is something that (obviously) doesn't happen from a planet's upper atmosphere.

 

[vintage cessna]

I really don't know why Wood (or Woods?) got the results he did. I'm not aware that he ever described his setup in enough detail to allow replication. One explanation that's been proposed is that the effect of warming from IR absorption by the glass was canceled out by enhanced convective heat transfer from the outside surface of the glass, so little of the absorbed energy found its way back into the greenhouse. I don't find that explanation particularly convincing. OTOH, I've also read that there have been more recent attempts to repeat the experiment that have gotten the opposite results - the glass greenhouse does indeed get warmer than the salt greenhouse.

So it might depend on the environment too. Convective exchange with the outside is something that (obviously) doesn't happen from a planet's upper atmosphere.

No one, that I've seen has found fault with Woods methods or results since 1909.

Here is where we are in a nutshell as far as the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory goes. Woods disproves the existing Greenhouse theory ( the one most people think is occurring), a mathemical equation comes along, computes what the Earths mean temp should be (equation assumes the Earth behaves like a Black Body). The equation result is 33c cooler than the actual mean temp of the Earth. Only one possible explanation, Greenhouse Effect. Since we have no way to experimentally detect the Greenhouse Effect in the actual atmosphere, and no observable effect has been detected, that equation, which is suspect, is the only thing we have to say there is a Greenhouse Effect.

 

[denverpilot]

That is the conundrum we face, if nobody wants to believe anybody's data, you'll wait until we are extinct waiting for something "concrete".

Or we won't, since the data could also show there's no extinction event coming for a long long time.

You injected your bias about what you think the data says into a comment about a need for better data. That's entertaining.

 

[azure]

I said they ARE aware of the Woods experiment. That's why we have your very complex explanation of the Greenhouse Effect today. It reminds me of the complex celestial models of the solar system that had the Earth and not the Sun at the center.

Actually my explanation was still an oversimplification, talking only about the net energy budget. How the energy absorbed by GHGs is transferred to and transported through the atmosphere is very complex - the mean free path of an IR photon is on the order of meters. More than that, most of the energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is actually transferred to other molecules by collisions - the mean free time of a CO2 molecule in the troposphere is shorter than the lifetime of the excited state. That's why the details of the GHE require taking into account both radiative and convective energy transfer. Climate scientists don't even talk in terms of radiation from the GHGs to the surface -- instead they say the radiative properties of the atmosphere determine the altitude (actually pressure level) at which planetary radiation escapes to space. The surface temperature is then determined by the lapse rate - which is partly due to adiabatic cooling.

It's NOT simple and I'm not an expert in the field so I'm not the one to give the most complete explanation. You asked for the basics and I gave them as accurately as I could. The landmark paper in the field that everyone cites seems to be the one by Ramanathan and Coakley from 1978. I have the paper (it's a free download, unlike G&T) but have not had a chance to read it yet; maybe over the holiday break, though I have to prepare for winter classes too (here inexplicably called "spring" semester), so maybe not.

 

[Henning]

You have to read at least the headline of the article to see the hockey stick in the news relative to the Antarctic has to do with the recent spike in sea ice extent.

Real hockey stick finally located: Antarctic sea ice continues to blow through all-time record-high levels 5th year in a row​

Do you understand that glaciers running down the antarctic slopes are feeding a growing pack of sea ice lubricated by the 1.5 degree increase in water temp? Loss of glacial mass off the continent at record rates does not support your argument, same thing happening in Greenland. This stuff is not that difficult to understand if one isn't looking to deny it for monetary reasons. You cant just look at one thing that is happening, one set of data points. You have to look at all the things happening combined, look at the effects and understand the relationships and interactions. The changes are real, we have increased the energy in the environment considerably. One can try to deny that as one will, but really? How can it possibly be plausible? Look at all the energy we consume, and waste 3 times as much energy as heat into the environment, and we have added an extra blanket of CO2 into the atmosphere with nature's blankets of CO2 and Methane.

There is always the possibility that this is part of alien terraforming because they get the planet next after we wipe ourselves out. They probably will make better use of the planet than we and need it. We either reach parity or disapear, three strikes and we are out.

 

[azure]

No one, that I've seen has found fault with Woods methods or results since 1909.

The two names I've seen mentioned are Pratt and Nahle - separately, not as collaborators.

Here is where we are in a nutshell as far as the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory goes. Woods disproves the existing Greenhouse theory ( the one most people think is occurring), a mathemical equation comes along, computes what the Earths mean temp should be (equation assumes the Earth behaves like a Black Body). The equation result is 33c cooler than the actual mean temp of the Earth. Only one possible explanation, Greenhouse Effect. Since we have no way to experimentally detect the Greenhouse Effect in the actual atmosphere, and no observable effect has been detected, that equation, which is suspect, is the only thing we have to say there is a Greenhouse Effect.

Sigh. It sounds to me as if you have formed a conclusion based on what you would like to be true, and if anyone tries to tell you that you are wrong but that you will need to do some physics to see exactly why, you just circle the wagons.

What would it mean to "detect the GHE"? What would you have to measure in order to verify it? Physicists understand it in terms of the basic physics - the equations of radiative and convective energy transfer and other effects that are well understood such as latent heat and adiabatic cooling. All of those effects are well established experimentally. The Earth's energy budget is known through satellite measurements - incoming and outgoing (reflected) solar radiation, outgoing longwave radiation from the planet. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation, by which the outgoing flux from the surface is estimated, is VERY well established physics. I agree there's a lot to be skeptical about in climate science, but I don't think the existence of the GHE is one of them. I'm more curious and (cautiously) skeptical about the statistical arguments that are applied to the data - not sure how people estimate the distribution of "natural fluctuations" in order to establish confidence intervals that an apparent trend is real and NOT due to said fluctuations. I trust that the experts have thought those issues through - and not bullied half-baked ideas through the peer review process. Again, my faith in the process. I may feel differently once I've gotten deeper into the field.

 

[N801BH]

I deal in reality.. Not fanatical ranting lunatics like Al Gore...

He claimed the Florida coast line and all low lying ground around the world would be under water by now from the melting ice caps.... I go the the Keys several times a year and I can say with complete honesty... Sea level has NOT risen....... even a little bit....

Care to explain that FACT.................

Either the ice is melting from global warming... or is is NOT......

Which is it ?????

 

[vintage cessna]

The two names I've seen mentioned are Pratt and Nahle - separately, not as collaborators.

Sigh. It sounds to me as if you have formed a conclusion based on what you would like to be true, and if anyone tries to tell you that you are wrong but that you will need to do some physics to see exactly why, you just circle the wagons.

What would it mean to "detect the GHE"? What would you have to measure in order to verify it? Physicists understand it in terms of the basic physics - the equations of radiative and convective energy transfer and other effects that are well understood such as latent heat and adiabatic cooling. All of those effects are well established experimentally. The Earth's energy budget is known through satellite measurements - incoming and outgoing (reflected) solar radiation, outgoing longwave radiation from the planet. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation, by which the outgoing flux from the surface is estimated, is VERY well established physics. I agree there's a lot to be skeptical about in climate science, but I don't think the existence of the GHE is one of them. I'm more curious and (cautiously) skeptical about the statistical arguments that are applied to the data - not sure how people estimate the distribution of "natural fluctuations" in order to establish confidence intervals that an apparent trend is real and NOT due to said fluctuations. I trust that the experts have thought those issues through - and not bullied half-baked ideas through the peer review process. Again, my faith in the process. I may feel differently once I've gotten deeper into the field.

Actually, I was quite content to believe what I was being told. It sounded logical. We take for granted that what Scientests say is the truth. No one has time to dig into every issue. But one day, while searching for something on You Tube I came across a video featuring an MIT prof named Lindzt. What he was saying was in direct contradiction to everything I knew about climate change. He didn't appear to be a lunatic. One thing lead to another and I couldn't stop researching the subject.

I had heard about climategate but didn't really pay attention to it at the time. What I learned threw me for a loop. This thing is political and not science at all.
The pro MMGW a group, led by a relatively small group of Climate Scientists, have made desperate attempts to make the facts fit the theory. The Theory of the Greenhouse Effect was disproved by an experiment that was elegant in its' simplicity. The counter argument that there is a Greenhouse Effect is so complicated and complex no one can understand it or really agree to it completely. You have a scientific background and you admit you don't fully understand it. And they can't prove it with a controlled experiment the way Wood did.




I'm afraid it is the pro MMGW people that are behaving like religious zealots. Arguments of authority ( we have scientific consensus, one of the most consistently made lies), suppression of dissent, dogma and infallibility. They continue to lie and mislead. Hopefully, what happened with climate science is an anomaly. But since there is so much money and political fortunes involved it will continue for a while. Substitute the UNITED Nations IPCC for the Pope at the time of Galileo and that is what we have now.

I do have faith though that honest science will eventually prevail.

 

[vintage cessna]

The two names I've seen mentioned are Pratt and Nahle - separately, not as collaborators.

Sigh. It sounds to me as if you have formed a conclusion based on what you would like to be true, and if anyone tries to tell you that you are wrong but that you will need to do some physics to see exactly why, you just circle the wagons.

What would it mean to "detect the GHE"? What would you have to measure in order to verify it? Physicists understand it in terms of the basic physics - the equations of radiative and convective energy transfer and other effects that are well understood such as latent heat and adiabatic cooling. All of those effects are well established experimentally. The Earth's energy budget is known through satellite measurements - incoming and outgoing (reflected) solar radiation, outgoing longwave radiation from the planet. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation, by which the outgoing flux from the surface is estimated, is VERY well established physics. I agree there's a lot to be skeptical about in climate science, but I don't think the existence of the GHE is one of them. I'm more curious and (cautiously) skeptical about the statistical arguments that are applied to the data - not sure how people estimate the distribution of "natural fluctuations" in order to establish confidence intervals that an apparent trend is real and NOT due to said fluctuations. I trust that the experts have thought those issues through - and not bullied half-baked ideas through the peer review process. Again, my faith in the process. I may feel differently once I've gotten deeper into the field.

You ask, what you would have to detect to verify the Greenhouse Theory. Simple, a correlation of rising CO2 and then rising temperature. Or, perhaps the appearance of the "tropical hot spot ". The "hockey stick" graph was presented as the smoking gun. But it was a fraud, back to the drawing board.

 

[vintage cessna]

The IPCC could stave off a lot of controversy if they would publish two sets of data and graphs. The first set would be comprised of raw data, the second set from "adjusted" data. Then they could explain how they adjusted the data and why, and we would all be able to make better judgements. Right now I just have to assume that anything published by the IPCC has undergone the usual chicanery.

 

[Henning]

Just for ****s and giggles, I found a sun exposure calc online and looked up where the conf is;

Lima Peru, Dec 8-12. Starting elevation -2.05deg N on 8th, ending elevation -1.56deg N on the 12th.

http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php

Of course, they could have made it ~ exactly overhead if they waited until Dec 20th, but no -- some of the attendees have to leave for ski trips, xmas vacation in Aruba, etc.

Recalls that last time they had some MMGW goings on and the ship got stuck in the ice! The UN made sure that faux pas wasn't going to happen again. And - sure as hell, no one wanted to go to Ecuador in late June.

Coinkeedink? You be the judge, no presuming going on here...

Wind blown pack ice created by collapsing glaciers dude, get a grip. Feel free to spin it in your brain anyway you want to deny change, but change is happening regardless.

 

[vintage cessna]

Wind blown pack ice created by collapsing glaciers dude, get a grip. Feel free to spin it in your brain anyway you want to deny change, but change is happening regardless.

The fact that the amount of Artic Ice that melts varies is nothing new. Only today we are alarmed because it must be due to MMGW, as well as every hurricane, flood or tornado. The amount of Artic ice has been changing for as long as people have been observing it. The most famous historical melting of ice was in the era of the Vikings, which made possible their colonization of Greenland.

 

[Henning]

The fact that the amount of Artic Ice that melts varies is nothing new. Only today we are alarmed because it must be due to MMGW, as well as every hurricane, flood or tornado. The amount of Artic ice has been changing for as long as people have been observing it. The most famous historical melting of ice was in the era of the Vikings, which made possible their colonization of Greenland.

 

[LDJones]

Do you understand that glaciers running down the antarctic slopes are feeding a growing pack of sea ice lubricated by the 1.5 degree increase in water temp? Loss of glacial mass off the continent at record rates does not support your argument, same thing happening in Greenland. This stuff is not that difficult to understand if one isn't looking to deny it for monetary reasons. You cant just look at one thing that is happening, one set of data points. You have to look at all the things happening combined, look at the effects and understand the relationships and interactions. The changes are real, we have increased the energy in the environment considerably. One can try to deny that as one will, but really? How can it possibly be plausible? Look at all the energy we consume, and waste 3 times as much energy as heat into the environment, and we have added an extra blanket of CO2 into the atmosphere with nature's blankets of CO2 and Methane.

There is always the possibility that this is part of alien terraforming because they get the planet next after we wipe ourselves out. They probably will make better use of the planet than we and need it. We either reach parity or disapear, three strikes and we are out.

How do you get massive melting with an average temp of -58F?? Wouldn't we need to warm another 90+ degrees?