2014 hottest year on record

[azure]

http://realplanet.eu/error.htm

This is more of the same. He is simply wrong.

All his adiabatic lapse rate argument shows is that temperature should decrease with altitude - which is basically correct, as far as it goes. His argument does NOT show that the temperature at the surface of Venus should be 460 C. The simple calculation - by which it is argued that Earth's temperature should be -18 C - simply says that the planet must radiate as if from a surface at -18 C. It does not say whether that surface should be at ground level or high in the atmosphere. There is a free parameter there that he has ignored and is trying to say by fiat that it must be at the top of the atmosphere. That is where he is wrong about Earth, and Venus. If Venus's surface was at 90 bars with an atmosphere of N2 instead of CO2 (or some gas that's completely transparent to IR, not sure about N2 at high density), the surface (ground level) would be at the radiating temperature instead of some pressure level high in the atmosphere. There would still be a lapse rate, the upper atmosphere would be cooler than the surface - but the surface would not be at 460 C.

I'm not going to repeat myself on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. See post #990 in this thread or think more deeply about this instead of just posting crackpot papers.

 

[write-stuff]

Facts? What does that word mean? I believe that you are referring to your data set which I have reason to believe was cherry picked to fit the hypothesis. Climate science is still in a very primitive state compared to other branches of science so you will need much more than your "facts" to convince me of anything.

WTF? This has nothing to do with my comment. I'm referring to the fact that he wasn't interested in hearing azure's argument any further. AKA, fingers in ears. This is akin to Kim Ham's statement on TV that nothing could change his mind about creationism, so no need to listen to opposing arguments. It isn't necessary to arbitrarily charge off on a tangent every time someone says something that you disagree with.

 

[asechrest]

I'm not seeking Azure's comments since I already know her position. Just showing some alternate viewpoints.

That's a cop out. Azure claims to be pointing out errors in the basic physics. If you don't argue the contrary, then the positions in your link are completely suspect. Unless you're calling into question even the basic physics? You'd be quite a famous man if you could invalidate the Second Law.

 

[Gary F]

WTF? This has nothing to do with my comment. I'm referring to the fact that he wasn't interested in hearing azure's argument any further. AKA, fingers in ears. This is akin to Kim Ham's statement on TV that nothing could change his mind about creationism, so no need to listen to opposing arguments. It isn't necessary to arbitrarily charge off on a tangent every time someone says something that you disagree with.

I'm just stepping back to look at the big picture.

 

[vintage cessna]

On that level the principle is similar. The surface radiates in the infrared, and water droplets absorb infrared quite well. A water cloud also functions as a nice, "solid", radiating object. I think I've read that the back radiation increases by something like 20% on an overcast night vs a clear one. How much that varies depending on the humidity of the air underneath, I don't know. So I'm not sure how much of that enhancement is due to radiation directly from the cloud.

The other side of the equation though, of course, is that clouds during the day reflect sunlight and reduce solar heating. Also, part of their radiation goes out into space, which acts to enhance cooling. There is a lot of debate about whether clouds have a net warming or a net cooling effect.

edited to add: the greenhouse effect from gases is different in that they are transparent to visible light, which most of the Sun's energy is. So there is no question that they have a net warming effect.

People who can not acknowledge the simple facts of why we feel warmer on a cloudy night than a clear night are detached from reality. It became obvious to Robert Wood in 1909 why a Greenhouse heated up; convective cooling was blocked. The hot air was trapped, nothing to do with trapped radiation. Same with a night with low thick clouds.

You said earlier you don't know what to make of the Wood experiment. I guess so, since it pretty much means all this back radiation has absolutely no effect on air temperature. You people are so fixated on CO2 and this back radiation theory that you ignore the plain evidence.

It is really quite humorous. Some of the MMGW proponents acknowledge how a Greenhouse actually heats, but then put forth a theory that the atmosphere is warmer than it otherwise be with same theory people had in the 19th century about how a Greenhouse warms, by back radiation. They are stuck in the 19th century. How the IPCC describes the Greenhouse effect is the same as the people of the 19th century described a real Greenhouse. You are doing the same thing except with a lot more gobbledygook thrown in.

 

[vintage cessna]

There's not a lot of convection on a still, clear night, and those are the nights when the temperature drops the fastest.

There is a lot of convection on a calm night, not as strong as day and not as uneven. A hot air ballon still rises at night.

 

[azure]

People who can not acknowledge the simple facts of why we feel warmer on a cloudy night than a clear night are detached from reality. It became obvious to Robert Wood in 1909 why a Greenhouse heated up; convective cooling was blocked. The hot air was trapped, nothing to do with trapped radiation. Same with a night with low thick clouds.

I never said convection blocking wasn't an important factor with *low* clouds. Low stratus are typically formed of moisture trapped under an inversion. The clouds themselves don't inhibit convection; the inversion does.

I couldn't tell you whether inhibiting radiational cooling or convection is more important for low clouds. For high clouds, I'm pretty sure the radiational effect dominates.

You said earlier you don't know what to make of the Wood experiment. I guess so, since it pretty much means all this back radiation has absolutely no effect on air temperature. You people are so fixated on CO2 and this back radiation theory that you ignore the plain evidence.

The only one here who is fixated is you (and Thieme et al.). You don't seem to be reading anything I'm writing. The greenhouse effect is not *based* on back radiation; the back radiation is a *consequence* of the mechanism.

 

[azure]

There is a lot of convection on a calm night, not as strong as day and not as uneven. A hot air ballon still rises at night.

Are you actually saying that a hot air balloon rises *because* of convective updrafts?

 

[vintage cessna]

Are you actually saying that a hot air balloon rises *because* of convective updrafts?

No, merely pointing out that warm air will continue to rise at night. The main cooling effect at night is still convective not radiative cooling.

 

[vintage cessna]

WTF? This has nothing to do with my comment. I'm referring to the fact that he wasn't interested in hearing azure's argument any further. AKA, fingers in ears. This is akin to Kim Ham's statement on TV that nothing could change his mind about creationism, so no need to listen to opposing arguments. It isn't necessary to arbitrarily charge off on a tangent every time someone says something that you disagree with.

I've examined both sides of the debate. One is rational the other irrational. One has evidence, the other has speculation. How long do you give credibility to people constantly crying wolf and committing fraud? Wasn't hard to decide which side was correct.

 

[azure]

No, merely pointing out that warm air will continue to rise at night. The main cooling effect at night is still convective not radiative cooling.

As I said, I can't say with confidence which effect dominates. The American Meteorological Society seems to disagree with you, however.

One way to test your theory would be to observe the cooling rate on calm clear nights when the air is dry but convection is still inhibited by a low level inversion.

 

[vintage cessna]

As I said, I can't say with confidence which effect dominates. The American Meteorological Society seems to disagree with you, however.

One way to test your theory would be to observe the cooling rate on calm clear nights when the air is dry but convection is still inhibited by a low level inversion.

The AMS had better say that. They are one of the organizations I have also lost total respect for.

 

[azure]

The AMS had better say that. They are one of the organizations I have also lost total respect for.

What about the American Chemical Society?

 

[asechrest]

The AMS had better say that. They are one of the organizations I have also lost total respect for.

If you don't trust any of the orgs, and you won't or can't argue the basic physics of your own sources, why are we on page 41?

 

[vintage cessna]

What about the American Chemical Society?

I think a good portion of the so called scientific community and academia has gone whacko over a political issue. There are all kind of wild assertions being made. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. If you were to ask these people what the best economic model is their answer would be socialism or Marxism.

The only thing that is going to put a stop to it is the continuation of the current cooling trend. The media, even though they love the sensational headlines, will eventually ignore the cries of wolf.

 

[vintage cessna]

If you don't trust any of the orgs, and you won't or can't argue the basic physics of your own sources, why are we on page 41?

What basic physics? Why isn't the reality of the climate jiving with the theory of how things are supposed to work?

No one knows how everything in this universe works, and that includes radiation. But if you say, this should do this, and then it doesn't do that, it is time to move on and search for another explanation.

 

[Gary F]

I think a good portion of the so called scientific community and academia has gone whacko over a political issue. There are all kind of wild assertions being made. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. If you were to ask these people what the best economic model is their answer would be socialism or Marxism.

I agree with you here. Using Occam's razor political bias is the most likely explanation for the behavior of the alarmist scientist's analysis and predictions. They fall neatly in line with the needs of politicians to gain more control. Just because someone claims to be a scientist does not mean they are correct or even practicing science.

The only thing that is going to put a stop to it is the continuation of the current cooling trend. The media, even though they love the sensational headlines, will eventually ignore the cries of wolf.

Not a chance. They get to work backwards to come up with an explanation why the new conditions occurred (when they couldn't predict them) are harmful and require political intervention the scare mongers are selling. An example: just a few years ago Gore predicted more frequent and damaging hurricanes. We have had exceptionally quiet hurricane seasons for a while but we have been told that's just evidence that things are worse than predicted.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I think a good portion of the so called scientific community and academia has gone whacko over a political issue. There are all kind of wild assertions being made. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. If you were to ask these people what the best economic model is their answer would be socialism or Marxism.

The only thing that is going to put a stop to it is the continuation of the current cooling trend. The media, even though they love the sensational headlines, will eventually ignore the cries of wolf.

Wow. I'm a member of, and active in, the American Chemical Society. We are in favor of capitalism. As a group, we are concerned with overreach by government, but also concerned about how the products of chemistry affect our quality of life.

You got another fact wrong by saying the majority of us think the best economic model is Marxism or socialism.

 

[azure]

I think a good portion of the so called scientific community and academia has gone whacko over a political issue. There are all kind of wild assertions being made. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. If you were to ask these people what the best economic model is their answer would be socialism or Marxism.

I'll say, but apparently you fail to see the irony in that statement.

Okay, FWIW, here's a link to some reading material for you. I haven't read it in depth, but from a first read, this seems to be a correct explanation of the greenhouse effect. It is from the ACS and I would challenge you to find any political content here. As a result, it's pretty dry and technical reading but it doesn't seem to require any math beyond pre-calculus.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

If you won't even read it then I have to assume that you don't care to learn about the science you're trying to challenge.

 

[vintage cessna]

If you don't trust any of the orgs, and you won't or can't argue the basic physics of your own sources, why are we on page 41?

What you call the basic physics, I assume you mean the correct physics. When the so called basic physics are contradicted by reality, are you not receptive to alternate explanations of reality?

This is nothing new in science. Old ideas will prevail for long periods of time until they are finally overthrown. Right now some erroneous ideas from the 19th century are still clinging to life.

Currently, I think the only thing we can say with some assurance is that the effect of CO2 on temperature is so small as to be not measured or non existent.

 

[asechrest]

What you call the basic physics, I assume you mean the correct physics. When the so called basic physics are contradicted by reality, are you not receptive to alternate explanations of reality?

This is nothing new in science. Old ideas will prevail for long periods of time until they are finally overthrown. Right now some erroneous ideas from the 19th century are still clinging to life.

Currently, I think the only thing we can say with some assurance is that the effect of CO2 on temperature is so small as to be not measured or non existent.

It is abundantly clear you don't believe in MMGW. That was established long ago. But there is a deeper conversation here that you are dancing with but don't seem to be willing to truly engage in. This is a good example. You posted a link to information that I can only assume you believe is accurate. But when Azure attempts to engage you in a conversation about the basic physics of the linked information, you are unwilling.

I think your problem is the same as my problem. Neither of us have the expertise to engage in a discussion about the physics. And that leaves us in a tough position. If you've determined that MMGW is too politicized, and that the predictions have not come to fruition, it is fine to hold the position that you believe it to be false. But you seem to be calling into question the fundamental physics of processes without the ability to intelligently engage. That's nothing to be ashamed of because I can't do it either. But I am willing to admit that I am limited by my lack of knowledge and expertise and have come to a decision (or non-decision) with those limitations in mind.

 

[denverpilot]

Still no hot supermodel photos in this thread and 2014 is gone. Hottest year my ass.

 

[vintage cessna]

It is abundantly clear you don't believe in MMGW. That was established long ago. But there is a deeper conversation here that you are dancing with but don't seem to be willing to truly engage in. This is a good example. You posted a link to information that I can only assume you believe is accurate. But when Azure attempts to engage you in a conversation about the basic physics of the linked information, you are unwilling.

I think your problem is the same as my problem. Neither of us have the expertise to engage in a discussion about the physics. And that leaves us in a tough position. If you've determined that MMGW is too politicized, and that the predictions have not come to fruition, it is fine to hold the position that you believe it to be false. But you seem to be calling into question the fundamental physics of processes without the ability to intelligently engage. That's nothing to be ashamed of because I can't do it either. But I am willing to admit that I am limited by my lack of knowledge and expertise and have come to a decision (or non-decision) with those limitations in mind.

I read all the links Azure posts and I will read the latest. All the papers I read on this subject make a certain amount of sense. They all make certain assumptions and the logic flows from those assumptions.

I don't need to be a scientist to understand the scientific method, nor do I need to be a scientist to evaluate evidence. One critical thing missing here from the scientific method is positive validation. From the evidence I would say the theory has been invalidated. In the end all that matters is evidence.

I wouldn't normally engage in this kind of debate, but we are all being forced to take a stand. Either we reduce CO2 emissions before it is too late, if it is not already so, or we determine the claims being made about CO2 are false. So these scientists have forced our hand, and it is either put up or shut up. All the evidence goes against what they are saying.

It is kind of analogous to one mechanic saying your engine needs a complete overhaul or you will crash and burn and another mechanic says there is nothing wrong with your engine. You can bet I'm going to ask both of them to explain their reasons, and then I'm going to hit the books and learn something about engines. I wouldn't lean for the cheap way out of that situation becuase I value my life and my passengers lives more than the cost of an overhaul.

Unfortunately, we can't sit back and let the "experts" spoon feed us on the issue of climate change. We have been lied to , about that I have no doubt. I trust the scientific method to determine the truth on this issue. Saying things like consensus and settled science is not the scientific method. Why do non scientists have to point that out to them?

 

[overdrive148]

I don't need to be a scientist to understand the scientific method, nor do I need to be a scientist to evaluate evidence.

It is kind of analogous to one mechanic saying your engine needs a complete overhaul or you will crash and burn and another mechanic says there is nothing wrong with your engine. You can bet I'm going to ask both of them to explain their reasons, and then I'm going to hit the books and learn something about engines.

So if you don't need to be a scientist to understand scientific method, do you not need to be an A&P to understand what would be wrong with your engine if they had conflicting results?

 

[vintage cessna]

I'll say, but apparently you fail to see the irony in that statement.

Okay, FWIW, here's a link to some reading material for you. I haven't read it in depth, but from a first read, this seems to be a correct explanation of the greenhouse effect. It is from the ACS and I would challenge you to find any political content here. As a result, it's pretty dry and technical reading but it doesn't seem to require any math beyond pre-calculus.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

If you won't even read it then I have to assume that you don't care to learn about the science you're trying to challenge.

Believe it or not, I have already read that. Nice hypothesis, but Satalite data has indicated no reduction in outflow radiation. So now what? Is the data wrong or the hypothesis wrong?

 

[PaulS]

CO2 sensors don't seem very accurate....

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Believe it or not, I have already read that. Nice hypothesis, but Satalite data has indicated no reduction in outflow radiation. So now what? Is the data wrong or the hypothesis wrong?

You should read the links embedded with the article, rather than make false ad hominem arguments about the scientific societies having nothing to do with your point. Here is one of the links you failed to follow which explains why there is a difference between the energy received to the planet and the emission temperature.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/earthatmosphere.html

 

[vintage cessna]

You should read the links embedded with the article, rather than make false ad hominem arguments about the scientific societies having nothing to do with your point. Here is one of the links you failed to follow which explains why there is no change in outflow.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/earthatmosphere.html

This is why it is pointless to try to discuss this subject. There should be a reduction in outflow radiation, but if there is not but we got that covered. There should be a hot spot in the tropics due to more water vapor but if not we can explain that. There should be a rise in temperature but we can explain why not .Should be more hurricanes , oh well.

 

[vintage cessna]

Wow. I'm a member of, and active in, the American Chemical Society. We are in favor of capitalism. As a group, we are concerned with overreach by government, but also concerned about how the products of chemistry affect our quality of life.

You got another fact wrong by saying the majority of us think the best economic model is Marxism or socialism.

My comment was not meant to be directed to the ACS. I'm not saying there aren't any honest people that believe in MMGW .

 

[vintage cessna]

So if you don't need to be a scientist to understand scientific method, do you not need to be an A&P to understand what would be wrong with your engine if they had conflicting results?

You obviously missed my point. I will never know as much about engines as either of the two mechanics. But I should be able to determine which one is blowing smoke.

 

[overdrive148]

You obviously missed my point. I will never know as much about engines as either of the two mechanics. But I should be able to determine which one is blowing smoke.

By researching into engines, I got that part. But how can you understand the debate for global warming without delving into even basic physics or hypotheses?

Understanding the engine problems would require you to do research and understand how one works to find out what's wrong with yours.

Understanding how global warming works or doesn't work would require you to understand the complicated physics and hypotheses involved on both sides. And you seem pretty unwilling to do either of those and you don't trust the numbers provided. Which is fine, but if you don't have any hard numbers you can rely on, how can you have a solid position on the topic?

And unfortunately it's a more complex problem to boot - people don't argue much about how engines work, or if they do or not

 

[PaulS]

+/- 30 ppm seems to be the best I can find??

 

[vintage cessna]

By researching into engines, I got that part. But how can you understand the debate for global warming without delving into even basic physics or hypotheses?

Understanding the engine problems would require you to do research and understand how one works to find out what's wrong with yours.

Understanding how global warming works or doesn't work would require you to understand the complicated physics and hypotheses involved on both sides. And you seem pretty unwilling to do either of those and you don't trust the numbers provided. Which is fine, but if you don't have any hard numbers you can rely on, how can you have a solid position on the topic?

And unfortunately it's a more complex problem to boot - people don't argue much about how engines work, or if they do or not

I have delved into it. Comprehending the basic thermodymic mechanism of the atmosphere is not all that difficult. You are correct that the math portion of it would be over my head. If you look at a lot of issues in physics, like say radiation, you will find a lot of debate. And I don't mean just between the two camps we have been talking about.

Now evidence and statistics are another thing. It was a statistician that uncovered the hockey stick scandal. To say that the public is incapable of making an intelligent decision based on the evidence presented on this issue is wrong.

BTW, I do see debates about how aircraft engines work. LOP debate is just one of them.

 

[overdrive148]

I have delved into it. Comprehending the basic thermodymic mechanism of the atmosphere is not all that difficult. You are correct that the math portion of it would be over my head. If you look at a lot of issues in physics, like say radiation, you will find a lot of debate. And I don't mean just between the two camps we have been talking about.

Now evidence and statistics are another thing. It was a statistician that uncovered the hockey stick scandal. To say that the public is incapable of making an intelligent decision based on the evidence presented on this issue is wrong.

BTW, I do see debates about how aircraft engines work. LOP debate is just one of them.

Fair enough. I don't understand much about what both sides are saying, and don't know if the data is accurate or not either by the way. One of the reasons I'm hanging around in the thread.

Statisticians may have discovered discrepancies in data but they do create them too - saying what you want with what numbers while holding out on others. And that's why its a problem, without knowing exactly what is right and accurate or wrong and dishonest, how can you have a strong opinion without knowing how it works?

I meant mostly how an engine works as in suck squeeze bang blow, but good catch on a counterpoint.

 

[vintage cessna]

Fair enough. I don't understand much about what both sides are saying, and don't know if the data is accurate or not either by the way. One of the reasons I'm hanging around in the thread.

Statisticians may have discovered discrepancies in data but they do create them too - saying what you want with what numbers while holding out on others. And that's why its a problem, without knowing exactly what is right and accurate or wrong and dishonest, how can you have a strong opinion without knowing how it works?

I meant mostly how an engine works as in suck squeeze bang blow, but good catch on a counterpoint.

Becuase I believe we have been able to get the real data. If you have the real data then you can more reasonably make a determination about cause and effect. With real data you still may not know how it works but you can say it certainly doesn't work the way some say it does. Then you have to ask the question why would one side would cook the data to begin with.

My analogy with the aircraft engine may not have been the greatest. But I think I do recall at least one major engine manufacturer saying do not use the LOP method. What greater authority on how an aircraft engine works could you get? Now it seems LOP is the preferred method with no ill effects.

You see this sort of thing in medicine and nutrition all the time. A lot of scientific research has gone into those areas, and they reach consensus status among researchers quite often. Then something is proved wrong, but they continue to say or misdiagnose the wrong thing for a long time afterward.

 

[azure]

You should read the links embedded with the article, rather than make false ad hominem arguments about the scientific societies having nothing to do with your point. Here is one of the links you failed to follow which explains why there is a difference between the energy received to the planet and the emission temperature.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/earthatmosphere.html

I think he is saying that there SHOULD be a difference but that it isn't measured. Except that I'm not sure that's true. Refer to the NASA energy budget graphic.

Incoming solar radiation: 340.4 W/m2
Total reflected: 99.9 W/m2
Net incoming: 340.4 - 99.9 = 240.5 W/m2
Outgoing longwave radiation: 239.9 W/m2
Net absorbed: 240.5 - 239.9 = 0.6 W/m2

But the graphic does not give the error bars on the incoming and outgoing, and without knowing the error bars, one can't say whether the net absorbed is significant.

Either the difference IS measured, or it is unmeasurable due to measurement uncertainty. Either way, this is not evidence against either the greenhouse effect, or global warming.

 

[Florida Cracker]

When in doubt quote statistics, and bury them in data, whether made up, or not.

 

[vintage cessna]

I think he is saying that there SHOULD be a difference but that it isn't measured. Except that I'm not sure that's true. Refer to the NASA energy budget graphic.

Incoming solar radiation: 340.4 W/m2
Total reflected: 99.9 W/m2
Net incoming: 340.4 - 99.9 = 240.5 W/m2
Outgoing longwave radiation: 239.9 W/m2
Net absorbed: 240.5 - 239.9 = 0.6 W/m2

But the graphic does not give the error bars on the incoming and outgoing, and without knowing the error bars, one can't say whether the net absorbed is significant.

Either the difference IS measured, or it is unmeasurable due to measurement uncertainty. Either way, this is not evidence against either the greenhouse effect, or global warming.

Why wouldn't NASA put error bars on the graphic? Isn't that standard procedure?

 

[PaulS]

So if the accuracy of the best meter is +/- 30 ppm how can you resolve the levels any better than that???

 

[azure]

Why wouldn't NASA put error bars on the graphic? Isn't that standard procedure?

Maybe because it's intended as an educational resource?