2014 hottest year on record

[vintage cessna]

It is NOT an assumption, that's the point. We live on the surface of the Earth, we can measure the properties of the materials that make it up. The emissivities are measurable and have been measured. They're close to 1 around 10 um for nearly all of them that are present in appreciable quantities. Including water, I might add.

Where the trapped heat goes is a different question, along with what the dominant mechanisms are for transferring it to the surface. I don't know the breakdown, conduction vs. radiation, but I have to believe that radiation is not negligible given how large the back radiation is - it is less than but comparable to the flux radiated from the surface.

Transfer of heat to the deep ocean does NOT affect whether the surface radiates as a blackbody. (Read that again, be sure you understand what I'm saying there. I'm talking about the S-B law and not saying anything about what the surface temperature actually is.) It DOES, of course, affect the surface temperature. Go back to our discussion of how heat capacity and thermal diffusion affect the daily temperature cycle on a world like the Moon. The oceans have a huge heat capacity and the lag time between changes in forcing and changes in surface temperature could be of order years or longer. In the meantime the OLR from the planet might be less than the net incoming solar flux (incident minus reflected), i.e. the planet would be out of equilibrium.

But the surface, and the TOA, would still be radiating very nearly as a blackbody.

(In fact the energy budget charts show that the planet IS not quite in equilibrium, there is a net absorbed flux of something like 0.6 W/m2. I'm not sure whether that is really significant or whether it could be due to measurement uncertainty in the other terms.)

I think I will stop beating this dead horse. But the next time I'm cruising at 7500 ft I will look at the OAT, and my mind will fill with wonder and think :Isn't Mother Nature clever, all that magical back radiation bravefuly heading back down to Earth out of this frigid air to keep us toasty.

 

[azure]

What you have explained here is how the atmosphere cools the surface. Which is why the Earth's surface temperature is cooler than the moons' during the daytime. What you haven't explained is why the atmosphere is warmer at higher pressures.

I'm not sure if you've given up on this thread (I certainly wouldn't blame you if you did!), but I did want to address this, because it's a valid question. I started to answer it in #714 but then digressed into talking about other planets.

The answer is what you are trying to say: gases under pressure warm up without any heat being added, it's called "adiabatic compression". The atmosphere's temperature *profile* is largely controlled by that phenomenon - the "adiabatic lapse rate" that you will hear talked about in explanations of the Skew T diagram.

But what the actual temperature is at any *given* pressure level is NOT controlled by the lapse rate - only the way the temperature changes with pressure. The absolute temperature value depends on how much energy there is in the atmosphere - energy that originally came from the Sun, of course. GHGs add to the available energy by absorbing longwave radiation emitted by the surface, by GHGs, etc. (including the Sun). The net effect is to push the "p_rad" level from which longwave escapes into space farther out, i.e. to lower pressure values, so there is more atmosphere (with a lapse rate controlled by adiabatic expansion/compression) between that level and the surface. The temperature at that level is effectively the planet's radiating temperature, so if that level is pushed outward, the surface gets warmer.

I thought this view was completely equivalent to the back-radiation picture, but I gather now that if the atmosphere was purely radiative, the temperature profile would be very different. I need to get further in Pierrehumbert before I commit to that last point. There's a good discussion of this in the comments to that Judith Curry post, about 1/3 of the way down, by a poster Nullius in Verba.

 

[Gary F]

Do you think that we don't have a f***ing clue about orbital mechanics because we don't understand why Bode's rule works so well for 7 planets plus Ceres?

I see this all the time. Those who believe that we understand climate science adequately enough to make meaningful predictions point to some other area of science where they can model things successfully. Celestial mechanics is usually a straightforward application of Newtonian physics on a limited number of objects. IOW, it's relatively easy.

No, what is your point? That because we don't fully understand the atmosphere we don't have the foggiest idea of how it works? If that were true, weather forecasts even a day or two out would be no better than guessing. In fact they are MUCH better than guessing, and better today than they were 10 years ago because of improvements in computational speed and raw sounding data. The basic physics is not really in question.

There's a big difference between not having a full understanding, and not having a f---ing clue.

We may understand much of the basic science for many of the components of climate, we just don't have a f***** clue how they all interact. The Earth is anything but homogenous. There are just way too many variables to build a functioning software simulation. This is also true for medical science. It would be great if we didn't have to do experiments on cells or animals or humans and could just do research on a computer model of living things instead. In many ways the atmosphere of the Earth functions as a living entity.

 

[Everskyward]

I see this all the time. Those who believe that we understand climate science adequately enough to make meaningful predictions point to some other area of science where they can model things successfully. Celestial mechanics is usually a straightforward application of Newtonian physics on a limited number of objects. IOW, it's relatively easy.

We may understand much of the basic science for many of the components of climate, we just don't have a f***** clue how they all interact. The Earth is anything but homogenous. There are just way too many variables to build a functioning software simulation. This is also true for medical science. It would be great if we didn't have to do experiments on cells or animals or humans and could just do research on a computer model of living things instead. In many ways the atmosphere of the Earth functions as a living entity.

But doctors perform procedures on patients even when there isn't a 100% chance that the procedure will work. There is never a 100% guarantee.

 

[denverpilot]

This entire multiple page thread on "Hottest year on record" and not a single photo of a supermodel... sheesh... this just ain't right...

 

[Gary F]

But doctors perform procedures on patients even when there isn't a 100% chance that the procedure will work. There is never a 100% guarantee.

Why is that true and please elaborate on the relevance to climate science.

 

[Everskyward]

Why is that true and please elaborate on the relevance to climate science.

You're the one who brought it up in relation to climate science and this thread.

 

[Gary F]

You're the one who brought it up in relation to climate science and this thread.

You seem to be making my point. One of the biggest reasons things don't always work in medicine is the unpredictability of complex systems, specifically the human body.

 

[ChrisK]

Why is that true and please elaborate on the relevance to climate science.

You are the one who posted about celestial mechanics and Newtonian physics. Weren't these proven generally inaccurate?

Yet we still use ballistics and Euclidian geometry as scaled approximations for real world prediction.

It doesn't mean science is flawed and wrong. It means that science attempts to correct itself and uses flawed models until they can be improved upon, and that scientists like doctors must be willing to hypothesize and predict even when an outcome is not assured.

 

[Everskyward]

You seem to be making my point. One of the biggest reasons things don't always work in medicine is the unpredictability of complex systems, specifically the human body.

My point was that in medical situations we act even if we are not positive what the result is going to be. An educated guess seems to be enough. Of course that is also up to the patient but no doctor is going to give guarantees.

 

[azure]

I see this all the time. Those who believe that we understand climate science adequately enough to make meaningful predictions point to some other area of science where they can model things successfully. Celestial mechanics is usually a straightforward application of Newtonian physics on a limited number of objects. IOW, it's relatively easy.

The post that you quoted in #702 was in response to a challenge to the basic science. I brought up Bode's rule in *that* context, namely that there are lots of apparent patterns in nature that turn out not to be clues to anything meaningful. I said nothing about whether climate models are good enough to make meaningful predictions. You are simply moving the goalposts by bringing that up.

We may understand much of the basic science for many of the components of climate, we just don't have a f***** clue how they all interact. The Earth is anything but homogenous. There are just way too many variables to build a functioning software simulation. This is also true for medical science. It would be great if we didn't have to do experiments on cells or animals or humans and could just do research on a computer model of living things instead. In many ways the atmosphere of the Earth functions as a living entity.

Except for the last part about the planet acting like a living organism (Lovelock, anyone?), I agree with you, mostly, but I think saying we don't have a clue is overstating the case. Again, we understand enough of the basic physics to predict the weather very well on short time scales, even with all of the atmosphere's complexity, and even with a still fairly coarse grid of raw data. Beyond a couple of days, the models don't work so well for the *weather*. Of course we don't have to predict the weather 20 years from now to say something about what the *climate* will be like. That said, I agree that we probably don't know a whole lot about (a) the magnitude and role of feedbacks and (b) all the mechanisms that drive natural climate variability . If that's true then we haven't a hope of making accurate predictions about regional climates, precipitation patterns, or even global temperatures decades out.

It all comes down to what is a "meaningful" prediction. I think we can be pretty certain that if we keep driving CO2 levels up, the longwave energy from the surface will be slower to escape and the surface will warm (unless the Sun's output drops, or something unforeseen happens to increase the Earth's albedo). On what timescale that will happen, and how the climate will vary on timescales of less than 30 years along the way, I suspect we can't predict well at all, yet.

 

[Gary F]

You are the one who posted about celestial mechanics and Newtonian physics. Weren't these proven generally inaccurate?

Yet we still use ballistics and Euclidian geometry as scaled approximations for real world prediction.

It doesn't mean science is flawed and wrong. It means that science attempts to correct itself and uses flawed models until they can be improved upon, and that scientists like doctors must be willing to hypothesize and predict even when an outcome is not assured.

They are accurate. Relativistic effects are negligible under most circumstances.

 

[Gary F]

My point was that in medical situations we act even if we are not positive what the result is going to be. An educated guess seems to be enough. Of course that is also up to the patient but no doctor is going to give guarantees.

Yea but I'm not asking you to pay taxes and modify your lifestyle substantially based on speculation or educated guesses. (I'm not a proponent of government health insurance except as a last resort safety net.)

 

[ChrisK]

They are accurate. Relativistic effects are negligible under most circumstances.

You mean they are accurate enough as long as we limit the circumstance to certain parameters. That is exactly what climate scientists are doing via documented assumption, isn't it? I mean try to get the government policy, taxation, and wealth redistribution angle out of the picture for a minute. Isnt it possible that folks are just trying to do good work based on what they know and what they assume to be true?

 

[Gary F]

The post that you quoted in #702 was in response to a challenge to the basic science. I brought up Bode's rule in *that* context, namely that there are lots of apparent patterns in nature that turn out not to be clues to anything meaningful. I said nothing about whether climate models are good enough to make meaningful predictions. You are simply moving the goalposts by bringing that up.

Except for the last part about the planet acting like a living organism (Lovelock, anyone?), I agree with you, mostly, but I think saying we don't have a clue is overstating the case. Again, we understand enough of the basic physics to predict the weather very well on short time scales, even with all of the atmosphere's complexity, and even with a still fairly coarse grid of raw data. Beyond a couple of days, the models don't work so well for the *weather*. Of course we don't have to predict the weather 20 years from now to say something about what the *climate* will be like. That said, I agree that we probably don't know a whole lot about (a) the magnitude and role of feedbacks and (b) all the mechanisms that drive natural climate variability . If that's true then we haven't a hope of making accurate predictions about regional climates, precipitation patterns, or even global temperatures decades out.

It all comes down to what is a "meaningful" prediction. I think we can be pretty certain that if we keep driving CO2 levels up, the longwave energy from the surface will be slower to escape and the surface will warm (unless the Sun's output drops, or something unforeseen happens to increase the Earth's albedo). On what timescale that will happen, and how the climate will vary on timescales of less than 30 years along the way, I suspect we can't predict well at all, yet.

Your intelligent and thoughtful post deserves a more detailed response than I have the time or energy to provide but suffice it to say that we have a really good understanding of biochemistry but when you combine the many reactions in an organism like a human body we can lose track of the myriad of interactions and the end result. I simply believe that we don't know how human activity including carbon dioxide emissions will effect the climate or what we can expect 30 years from now. If we don't know what will occur without changes proposed by climate change agenda then we can't predict the results of any interventions.

 

[vintage cessna]

The post that you quoted in #702 was in response to a challenge to the basic science. I brought up Bode's rule in *that* context, namely that there are lots of apparent patterns in nature that turn out not to be clues to anything meaningful. I said nothing about whether climate models are good enough to make meaningful predictions. You are simply moving the goalposts by bringing that up.

Except for the last part about the planet acting like a living organism (Lovelock, anyone?), I agree with you, mostly, but I think saying we don't have a clue is overstating the case. Again, we understand enough of the basic physics to predict the weather very well on short time scales, even with all of the atmosphere's complexity, and even with a still fairly coarse grid of raw data. Beyond a couple of days, the models don't work so well for the *weather*. Of course we don't have to predict the weather 20 years from now to say something about what the *climate* will be like. That said, I agree that we probably don't know a whole lot about (a) the magnitude and role of feedbacks and (b) all the mechanisms that drive natural climate variability . If that's true then we haven't a hope of making accurate predictions about regional climates, precipitation patterns, or even global temperatures decades out.

It all comes down to what is a "meaningful" prediction. I think we can be pretty certain that if we keep driving CO2 levels up, the longwave energy from the surface will be slower to escape and the surface will warm (unless the Sun's output drops, or something unforeseen happens to increase the Earth's albedo). On what timescale that will happen, and how the climate will vary on timescales of less than 30 years along the way, I suspect we can't predict well at all, yet.

I see you have now considered both of the competing theories of the Greenhouse effect. First, it was the excessive "back radiation" that would heat the surface. Now it is cooling that will be inhibited thereby changing the lapse rate resulting in a heating of the surface that is the problem.

Your colleagues who have decided the back radiation theory is impossible don't like the term "Greenhouse effect" ( since they understand the heating of a real greenhouse has nothing to do with back radiation ).They prefer to reference it as an atmospheric effect, like you just described. Is that what you think now?

 

[73challenger]

Just to be clear, I am firmly in the "not human induced global warming" camp. I actually came to this thread, but I can't believe it's still such a hotly debated subject. The most amusing thing to me is, the original poster threw this grenade over the wall, has watched the result, and then been largely absent! lol He definitely stirred the pot!

 

[azure]

I see you have now considered both of the competing theories of the Greenhouse effect. First, it was the excessive "back radiation" that would heat the surface. Now it is cooling that will be inhibited thereby changing the lapse rate resulting in a heating of the surface that is the problem.

Your colleagues who have decided the back radiation theory is impossible don't like the term "Greenhouse effect" ( since they understand the heating of a real greenhouse has nothing to do with back radiation ).They prefer to reference it as an atmospheric effect, like you just described. Is that what you think now?

I'm going to hold off committing one way or the other until I've finished Pierrehumbert's chapter 3 at least. But I don't think these are really two competing theories of the GHE itself. The GHE emerges from the basic physics by considering rates of absorption and re-emission of radiation by GHGs and imposing the condition that the total flux of energy into each layer of atmosphere equals the total flux out. If the atmosphere is absorbing energy then it is going to be warmer than it otherwise would be and the surface will need to be warmer in order to cool itself fast enough to be in thermal equilibrium with the lowest layer of the atmosphere. That's true regardless of whether the energy is transferred mainly by radiation or by conduction/convection.

BTW nobody (except G&T) has decided that the back radiation theory is "impossible". Back radiation is real and it is clearly a major part of the surface energy budget. What Nullius and others on that board are saying is that radiation does not control the temperature profile within the atmosphere, that it is a small part of the energy budget of a local parcel of air. That makes sense to me if the parcel emits and receives at roughly the same rate so the net radiative flow is close to zero.

 

[vintage cessna]

I'm going to hold off committing one way or the other until I've finished Pierrehumbert's chapter 3 at least. But I don't think these are really two competing theories of the GHE itself. The GHE emerges from the basic physics by considering rates of absorption and re-emission of radiation by GHGs and imposing the condition that the total flux of energy into each layer of atmosphere equals the total flux out. If the atmosphere is absorbing energy then it is going to be warmer than it otherwise would be and the surface will need to be warmer in order to cool itself fast enough to be in thermal equilibrium with the lowest layer of the atmosphere. That's true regardless of whether the energy is transferred mainly by radiation or by conduction/convection.

BTW nobody (except G&T) has decided that the back radiation theory is "impossible". Back radiation is real and it is clearly a major part of the surface energy budget. What Nullius and others on that board are saying is that radiation does not control the temperature profile within the atmosphere, that it is a small part of the energy budget of a local parcel of air. That makes sense to me if the parcel emits and receives at roughly the same rate so the net radiative flow is close to zero.

To be fair, I think your side needs to present a single theory, a theory that has consensus. If consensus is reached, then we will know what the scientific truth is.

I hope this back radition thing is true, then we can build a device that mimics the Earth and its' atmosphere and solve our energy problem.

Interesting that you took the first step of believing in the Greenhouse effect before deciding how it actually works. I thought in science it was the other way around.

 

[Gary F]

To be fair, I think your side needs to present a single theory, a theory that has consensus. If consensus is reached, then we will know what the scientific truth is.

I hope this back radition thing is true, then we can build a device that mimics the Earth and its' atmosphere and solve our energy problem.

Interesting that you took the first step of believing in the Greenhouse effect before deciding how it actually works. I thought in science it was the other way around.

It would be wonderful if the alarmists published all their evidence including raw data and analysis on a single website. In reality it's like pulling teeth to get some researchers to cooperate. They are acting like high priests who believe that they alone should be privileged to view the sacred texts and interpret their meaning.

 

[TMetzinger]

Interesting that you took the first step of believing in the Greenhouse effect before deciding how it actually works. I thought in science it was the other way around.

First step in science is in observing something.
THEN you come up with theories on how it works
THEN you come up with experiments hoping to prove/disprove/refine your theories.

So, we all might agree that 2014 was the hottest year on record (at least I hope we can agree on observations).

Then we can merrily (after all, it's Christmas) disagree on theories and the validity of various experiments.

 

[vintage cessna]

First step in science is in observing something.
THEN you come up with theories on how it works
THEN you come up with experiments hoping to prove/disprove/refine your theories.

So, we all might agree that 2014 was the hottest year on record (at least I hope we can agree on observations).

Then we can merrily (after all, it's Christmas) disagree on theories and the validity of various experiments.

We're it though that at least the modern ( thermometer record) was not in dispute. It was presented to us that the 1990's was the hottest decade of modern record.

The raw date though indicated that the 1930's were hotter than the 90's with 1934 the hottest year of the modern thermometer record. However, the experts adjusted or as they say homogenized the temps from the 30's downward.

When through FOIA or court proceedings it was demanded of the CRU to present the data used to "adjust" the temperatures, the data had been "lost" .

Climategate Emails reveal how that data was " lost " .

The terrestrial temp data is all but useless now. Thousands of " cool " stations have been eliminated from the data base, with most stations remaining under the influence of urban heat islands.

 

[azure]

To be fair, I think your side needs to present a single theory, a theory that has consensus. If consensus is reached, then we will know what the scientific truth is.

Not a fair argument. There aren't "two theories". There is one theory, but it's not very transparent so in describing what is going on in physical terms, people use oversimplifications that don't hold up under the microscope. That's unfortunate but it's not uncommon in science, even in physics. The famous "twin paradox" is an example, the usual explanation is that because the twin who goes away in a spaceship is moving, his clocks are all slower so he doesn't age as fast as the twin who stays behind. That explanation is wrong since to the traveling twin, it's the homebound twin whose clocks appear to run slow. The correct explanation involves the fact that the traveling twin is the one who experiences acceleration and deceleration, and during those times the way each twin views the other's aging process is not symmetrical. But one explanation is correct and the other is wrong, it's not a case of "two theories".

Interesting that you took the first step of believing in the Greenhouse effect before deciding how it actually works. I thought in science it was the other way around.

I also believe that you need to burn more calories than you take in in order to get rid of excess fat. Do I need to understand the details of human metabolism in order to decide whether that is true or not?

The GHE isn't new physics that challenges existing concepts. If GHGs absorb energy radiated from the surface and transfer it to the rest of the atmosphere, the result is going to be warming. The detailed mechanisms involved don't bear on that conclusion.

 

[Gary F]

First step in science is in observing something.
THEN you come up with theories on how it works
THEN you come up with experiments hoping to prove/disprove/refine your theories.

So, we all might agree that 2014 was the hottest year on record (at least I hope we can agree on observations).

Then we can merrily (after all, it's Christmas) disagree on theories and the validity of various experiments.

Not so according to the experts. We have settled science and anybody who disagrees is a blasphemer.

 

[N801BH]

Just to be clear, I am firmly in the "not human induced global warming" camp. I actually came to this thread, but I can't believe it's still such a hotly debated subject. The most amusing thing to me is, the original poster threw this grenade over the wall, has watched the result, and then been largely absent! lol He definitely stirred the pot!

First post...

Welcome to POA..

 

[vintage cessna]

Not a fair argument. There aren't "two theories". There is one theory, but it's not very transparent so in describing what is going on in physical terms, people use oversimplifications that don't hold up under the microscope. That's unfortunate but it's not uncommon in science, even in physics. The famous "twin paradox" is an example, the usual explanation is that because the twin who goes away in a spaceship is moving, his clocks are all slower so he doesn't age as fast as the twin who stays behind. That explanation is wrong since to the traveling twin, it's the homebound twin whose clocks appear to run slow. The correct explanation involves the fact that the traveling twin is the one who experiences acceleration and deceleration, and during those times the way each twin views the other's aging process is not symmetrical. But one explanation is correct and the other is wrong, it's not a case of "two theories".

I also believe that you need to burn more calories than you take in in order to get rid of excess fat. Do I need to understand the details of human metabolism in order to decide whether that is true or not?

The GHE isn't new physics that challenges existing concepts. If GHGs absorb energy radiated from the surface and transfer it to the rest of the atmosphere, the result is going to be warming. The detailed mechanisms involved don't bear on that conclusion.

I like your calorie example. I like it because it's a system where you don't end up with more total energy than what entered the system, unlike your Greenhouse system. Your belief in the calorie system can be verified by millions of successful results, so you don't need to understand the mechanisms to believe it. So it is very rational. Part of the scientific method, verifiable results. Again, unlike your Greenhouse theory and computer models. No experimentation, no predicable results. No legitimate observations to confirm it. Very irrational.

You have it part right though. CO2 is just another conduit, or radiator that will transport heat up through the atmosphere. It does not store or trap heat. It is not capable of inhibiting radiative cooling or warming a body ( Earth) that is warmer than itself.

 

[azure]

I like your calorie example. I like it because it's a system where you don't end up with more total energy than what entered the system, unlike your Greenhouse system.

Here's a serious question. If you put on a heavy coat indoors, you will get warmer, correct? Does your body have to burn more calories with the coat on in order to sustain that warmth? If not, why not? Where is that "extra warmth" coming from?

 

[vintage cessna]

Here's a serious question. If you put on a heavy coat indoors, you will get warmer, correct? Does your body have to burn more calories with the coat on in order to sustain that warmth? If not, why not? Where is that "extra warmth" coming from?

No , you do not have to burn extra calories. The coat acts as a barrier to convective cooling, the main factor, and also radiative cooling, a minor factor. There is no "extra warmth". The coat can not raise the temperature of your body. It can only decrease or inhibit the cooling.CO2 on the other hand, has nothing to do with convective or radiative cooling.

If you have someone suffering from heat stroke or hypothermia you need something available that can transfer heat to or from the body.

 

[azure]

No , you do not have to burn extra calories. The coat acts as a barrier to convective cooling, the main factor, and also radiative cooling, a minor factor. There is no "extra warmth". The coat can not raise the temperature of your body. It can only decrease or inhibit the cooling.CO2 on the other hand, has nothing to do with convective or radiative cooling.

So your skin won't be any warmer? Your body won't start sweating in an effort to cool itself off?

 

[vintage cessna]

So your skin won't be any warmer? Your body won't start sweating in an effort to cool itself off?

Sure, because you have stopped or greatly reduced the cooling. But you have not created any extra heat, all of the heat is still being generated by your body. The only heat in this "system" is that provided by your body. People can overheat when their body can not rid itself of the heat as fast as it is being produced.

The analogy of a coat or blanket doesn't hold with CO2. It doesn't block or trap thermal radiation or convection from the surface that prevents cooling.Unlike your body, the Earth is not generating any heat. Even if you did believe CO2 did this, at 400 ppm, and uneven distribution throughout the Earths' atmosphere to boot, there isn't enough of it to make any difference.

 

[vintage cessna]

Bouncing thermal radiation back and forth doesn't generate any extra heat. The only place it does is in the back radiation theory. Imagine what we could do if it did.

The whole idea is ridiculous. But it is part of the dogma.

 

[Henning]

I see this all the time. Those who believe that we understand climate science adequately enough to make meaningful predictions point to some other area of science where they can model things successfully. Celestial mechanics is usually a straightforward application of Newtonian physics on a limited number of objects. IOW, it's relatively easy.

We may understand much of the basic science for many of the components of climate, we just don't have a f***** clue how they all interact. The Earth is anything but homogenous. There are just way too many variables to build a functioning software simulation. This is also true for medical science. It would be great if we didn't have to do experiments on cells or animals or humans and could just do research on a computer model of living things instead. In many ways the atmosphere of the Earth functions as a living entity.

Oh, actually we do understand how things we can perceive interact, when you are dealing with just cosmic forces we can perceive, we can even model hugely complex interactions. The only thing thermodynamics and relativity is forgetting to include into the equations is the energy spectrum life produces and the interactions from information exciting dark matter into matter. Once you add that in, the holes in the equations fill in and Gravity is understood as a byproduct of the reaction of constant creation.

 

[Gary F]

Oh, actually we do understand how things we can perceive interact, when you are dealing with just cosmic forces we can perceive, we can even model hugely complex interactions. The only thing thermodynamics and relativity is forgetting to include into the equations is the energy spectrum life produces and the interactions from information exciting dark matter into matter. Once you add that in, the holes in the equations fill in and Gravity is understood as a byproduct of the reaction of constant creation.

Rather than attempt to reply to your post I'll just sit here in awe for a little while. Thank you for being the Most Interesting Man in the SZ (not kidding). I mean Most Interesting Person in the SZ (sorry Aunt Peggy).

 

[vintage cessna]

You mean they are accurate enough as long as we limit the circumstance to certain parameters. That is exactly what climate scientists are doing via documented assumption, isn't it? I mean try to get the government policy, taxation, and wealth redistribution angle out of the picture for a minute. Isnt it possible that folks are just trying to do good work based on what they know and what they assume to be true?

What documented assumption? Of the correlation of CO2 to temp? We thought they had it, but it turned out to be phony. But they still program that assumption into the models.

Climategate Emails reveal a totally different picture. The true believers will burn at the stake rather than denounce the faith.

Now that the political agenda is going down in flames, most of these people are just looking for a soft landing. They will start toning down the claims, and slowly modifying their opinions and separating themselves from the alarmists. Some of them have already started this process. Too many smart people looking at this issue now. The wild claims are just not able to withstand the scrutiny.

 

[Henning]

Rather than attempt to reply to your post I'll just sit here in awe for a little while. Thank you for being the Most Interesting Man in the SZ (not kidding).

The only reason we do not understand the full complexity of our existence is because scientists seem determined to disprove God and will not entertain a model of the universe, including evolution, which has an intelligence at the core. God inspired man to science because the religion thing failed miserably at getting people to understand their true nature because it got corrupted by greed. Then religious persecution of science corrupted science. Everything that competes against greed gets quashed and killed. We are a failed species at this point and are due to be eradicated to make way for something new. As brilliant as we are technically, we are too stupid to survive.

You can't just end equations with infinity and call it good.

 

[vintage cessna]

The only reason we do not understand the full complexity of our existence is because scientists seem determined to disprove God and will not entertain a model of the universe, including evolution, which has an intelligence at the core. God inspired man to science because the religion thing failed miserably at getting people to understand their true nature because it got corrupted by greed. Then religious persecution of science corrupted science. Everything that competes against greed gets quashed and killed. We are a failed species at this point and are due to be eradicated to make way for something new.

You can't just end equations with infinity and call it good.

Hawkings says science has proved there is no god. I guess that settles it.

 

[azure]

Sure, because you have stopped or greatly reduced the cooling. But you have not created any extra heat, all of the heat is still being generated by your body. The only heat in this "system" is that provided by your body. People can overheat when their body can not rid itself of the heat as fast as it is being produced.

Exactly. The heat comes from your body, but of course the energy ultimately comes from the calories in the food you eat. In order to stay the same temperature without sweating, you would have to go to a colder environment because the greater the temperature difference, the faster the flow of heat from warm to cold.

What happens is this: when you first put on the coat, your body is generating the same amount of heat as before but you are losing less, so the heat builds up inside and your temperature rises. Neglecting your internal thermostat for a moment, you wouldn't continue to warm indefinitely because your rate of heat loss increases as the temperature difference increases. Eventually your temperature stabilizes when the outbound heat flow rate balances the rate at which your body generates heat.

But you don't have more energy in the system than you put it; you end up with more in it because you have, at least for a time, been releasing less than you have put in.

Unlike your body, the Earth is not generating any heat.

Also correct. In the case of the Earth, the "heat" is coming from the Sun, in the form of (mostly) shortwave radiation, which is still being received at about the same rate regardless of how much CO2 you pump into the atmosphere.

The analogy of a coat or blanket doesn't hold with CO2. It doesn't block or trap thermal radiation or convection from the surface that prevents cooling.

Impeding convection won't keep the planet from cooling itself, since very little energy is lost to space that way anyway. But CO2 and other GHGs do in fact "trap" thermal radiation - at certain wavelengths in the IR. Since the only way the planet can cool itself is by radiation, for a given surface temperature this does slow down the rate of cooling.

Even if you did believe CO2 did this, at 400 ppm, and uneven distribution throughout the Earths' atmosphere to boot, there isn't enough of it to make any difference.

Then why is Earth's surface temperature close to 15C instead of -18?

 

[Henning]

Hawkings says science has proved there is no god. I guess that settles it.

When and how? Science's biggest, most expensive experiment set at the LHC failed at that miserably. Both models that disproved God we're not accurate, the Higgs measurement came in halfway between the super symmetric universe model and the chaotic multiverse model. It came in indicating a super symmetric multiverse, but nobody is looking for that because that indicates against random occurrence.

Physicists have not yet come upon the relationship of space and time being a dynamic interaction, time in motion through space traveling at the speed of light functioning as the carrier wave for life. They also haven't come upon the nature of life being a duality, much as light. Same as a photon is partical and wave, life is similar, only life is information and energy.
The division of disciplines in science is a bit of a problem in being able to see the forest for the trees, but we really should have done a better job of understanding by now since we have developed all the required data, we just refuse to interpret it correctly. Religion had the exact same problem.

God thinks we can make it, I bet against it. As long as I keep up my end of the bet though, I win either way, so WTF, I'm on the ride, maybe we do make it.

BTW, Einstien was wrong on one more thing, God does roll dice. By nature God is a degenerate gambler.

 

[azure]

When and how? Science's biggest, most expensive experiment set at the LHC failed at that miserably. Both models that disproved God we're not accurate, the Higgs measurement came in halfway between the super symmetric universe model and the chaotic multiverse model. It came in indicating a super symmetric multiverse, but nobody is looking for that because that indicates against random occurrence.

Physicists have not yet come upon the relationship of space and time being a dynamic interaction, time in motion through space traveling at the speed of light functioning as the carrier wave for life. They also haven't come upon the nature of life being a duality, much as light. Same as a photon is partical and wave, life is similar, only life is information and energy.
The division of disciplines in science is a bit of a problem in being able to see the forest for the trees, but we really should have done a better job of understanding by now since we have developed all the required data, we just refuse to interpret it correctly. Religion had the exact same problem.

God thinks we can make it, I bet against it. As long as I keep up my end of the bet though, I win either way, so WTF, I'm on the ride, maybe we do make it.

BTW, Einstien was wrong on one more thing, God does roll dice. By nature God is a degenerate gambler.

Wow!! :worthysmilie:

Gary, I agree. Deepak Chopra, step aside, you have met your match.

 

[N801BH]

The only reason we do not understand the full complexity of our existence is because scientists seem determined to disprove God and will not entertain a model of the universe, including evolution, which has an intelligence at the core. God inspired man to science because the religion thing failed miserably at getting people to understand their true nature because it got corrupted by greed. Then religious persecution of science corrupted science. Everything that competes against greed gets quashed and killed. We are a failed species at this point and are due to be eradicated to make way for something new. As brilliant as we are technically, we are too stupid to survive.

You can't just end equations with infinity and call it good.

Very true....

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy

Probably the main reason I detest religion.....