| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
Good, so long as you agree that the 'in the pipeline' warming proposed by the likes of SKS is total junk I am happy. Well, no... the warming 'in the pipeline' is what we expect based on today's planetary energy imbalance. Do you see? It's the warming that would have to occur in order to restore radiative equilibrium. Global warming will necessarily continue until the imbalance is reduced to zero - for this not to happen would be physically impossible. In theory we could make it happen sooner by deliberately reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases, or increasing the Earth's albedo. Either or both would reduce the imbalance and thereby reduce the warming 'in the pipeline'. As I said before, removing 350 billion tons of COâ‚‚ would in theory reduce the imbalance to zero and stop global warming. Doesn't seem likely to happen though, which is why a lot more warming seems inevitable... |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 19:19:13 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: Good, so long as you agree that the 'in the pipeline' warming proposed by the likes of SKS is total junk I am happy. Well, no... the warming 'in the pipeline' is what we expect based on today's planetary energy imbalance. No, any warming in the future will be the result of a future imbalance. While more heat enters than exits a system the temperature will rise, when there is balance it will stay the same, and when more leaves it will cool. That is basic physics. the process you describe, where heat can enter a system and not result in an immediate temperature change is impossible. For every joule of energy you add to matter its temperature rises. you stop adding joules, it stops rising. period. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 10:44:42 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: Oh come on, surely you understand the difference between the time it takes to boil water and the theory proposed by AGW alarmists that even if no more heat entered the system, warming will continue? There is no such theory, but I take it we can now agree that it takes time to raise the temperature of the world's oceans, just as it does to boil a pan of water. That being the case, the warming will lag behind a steadily increasing climate forcing. By forcing you mean heat input, yes? How does heat input NOT result in an immediate temperature rise? Its all very well making analogies with pots of water, but they are simplistic and irrelevant (because the metal pan acts as a heat sink so after the flams is turned off the water will continue to get warmer). If you add heat to mater it gets warmer. Period. When you stop adding heat it stops getting warmer. So todays forcing is todays temperature. Not tomorrows. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 17:54:17 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:21:17 -0800 (PST) matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: ... In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got 0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%. Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of ocean. Not this old crock again. There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter, its temperature increases. Period. It's _whole_ temperature increases. That heat may get locked away and then outside resources can release that heat by changing surface conditions. Heat may get locked away? Where is this mythical heat sink that for 100 years has been stealing heat from the atmosphere and which will suddenly release it to cause further warming as soon as we stop CO2 increasing? So you cant 'store heat' in some handy little heat sink somewhere and have it later jump out on the earth and cause warming. It just isn't physically possible. Oh really? I suggest you think of ENSO and you might want to revise that statement. -- Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'. "Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate." - BBC News subtitle |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 11:26:20 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"General" wrote: "Togless" wrote: For example: If today's climate forcing is sufficient to cause 1.3°C of global warming at equilibrium... ================================= Equilibrium is indeed the key word. There's a failure to understand the difference between thermodynamics and kinetics. Thermodynamics tells you what balance the state of a system will ultimately tend towards, kinetics tells you how quickly that state might be reached, given the processes that have to occur to achieve the equilibrium state.. That's right - there is some uncertainty about how readily heat is mixed into the deep oceans. See Hansen's study "Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications" for a discussion. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...ancePaper..pdf When did the oceans start warming? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote in message
... Heat may get locked away? Where is this mythical heat sink that for 100 years has been stealing heat from the atmosphere and which will suddenly release it to cause further warming as soon as we stop CO2 increasing? In the Warm Pool. When that releases its heat in an El Nino the whole of the globe will warm. Cheers, Alastair. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On 19/02/2014 14:21, matt_sykes wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 12:44:27 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote: On 18/02/2014 15:59, matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 16:37:13 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote: On 18/02/2014 14:21, matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: ... In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got 0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%. Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of ocean. Not this old crock again. There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter, its temperature increases. Period. Thermal inertia is a pretty good description of the cause of the lag between the net maximum heat input and the actual hottest day in a given climate. Actually it isn't. What you have is constant heat, pouring into matter, and it gets hotter and hotter, and as the sun goes past the zenith, the amount of heat pouring in gets less and less until it reaches the point at which the matter can release heat as quickly as it absorbs it, and reaches a maximum temperature. But the point here is that it matters what the matter is and how much of it there is. Oceans are powerful heat shunts and a warmer ocean surface will deliver a lot more water vapour into the atmosphere. No it doesn't. If you add heat to matter it gets warmer, period. (And please don't start a circular argument, phase change can not give us 'dialled in' temperature rise). But it takes time to reach equilibrium balance and the entire bulk of the planet has to warm up slightly for every change in GHG. This takes a seriously long time potentially decades. You don't really believe that if you turn an oven on it instantly reaches the temperature requested on the dial do you? A piece of thin aluminium foil on a thick polystyrene insulating surface gets hotter a lot faster than a thick slab of aluminium. It is all to do with the specific heat capacity of the object being heated. Engineers call this thermal inertia which isn't such a bad name for it. Actually its called specific heat capacity. Yes. But it illustrates the point which you are so wilfully trying not to grasp. namely: Oceans have a very high specific heat capacity compared to the atmosphere and an insanely long time to turn over their circulation. You also have the delaying effect of GH gasses in the atmosphere, WV principally, that absorb incoming solar IR and delay its arrival at the surface. This is unmitigated drivel. The atmosphere is largely transparent to the the bulk of the power containing peak wavelengths of incoming solar radiation at a characteristic temperature of 5500K. You are completely wrong. 505 of incoming solar energy is in the IR and plenty of it is in WV absorption bands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png You are an idiot. There is a fair amount of short wave IR and a few nibbles taken out of it by water vapour (and by ozone in the UV), but the bulk of the energy is in the visible band and near IR out to 1250nm. The longwave tail of IR around 10um contains comparatively little. The "delay" due to absorption and re-emission in the dense part of the atmosphere where water vapour exists is probably less than 1ms - completely irrelevant as far as determining the hottest time of day. So how does WV hold heat into the night if IR photons can travel through it so fast? The outgoing photons at night are peaked around 10um thermal IR band characteristic of the Earth's ~290K black body emission where the atmosphere is optically dense due to the WV and CO2 absorption lines. Outgoing photons have to run the gauntlet of a random walk along their mean free path diffusing back through the atmosphere to escape. Now tell me, once the heat has got into matter, changed it phase, yet not resulted in a temperature rise, how does that heat then go on to generate 'dialled in' temperature, a phrase so beloved of the 'thermal lag' ridiculousness. I have no idea what you are talking about with 'dialed in" temperature. No? so what are you arguing about then, and go read skepticalscience, or just google it. The planet has a huge specific heat capacity and so if you change the radiation balance slightly it takes a long time to re-establish an equilibrium the climate will continue to warm for decades even if we could instantly stop putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. The thing you call "dialed in" temperature increase is because we have made it so that the Earth will have to warm up to redress the radiation imbalance but for that to happen the entirety of th eEarth has to warm slightly and that has a very long time constant. I sniped the rest of yours stuff, it was about feedbacks and totally irrelevant to this thread. Typical denier tactic to ignore any inconvenient physics that conflicts with your prejudices. No, it was just irrelevant waffle that had nothing to do with supposed 'thermal lag'. Albedo feedback from ice and snow in the northern hemisphere is one of the main reasons that a small increase in trapped heat gets amplified. The changes of insolation due to the variation in the Earths orbital elements are otherwise far too small to evoke glaciation. The receeding glaciers, snowlines and thawing of permafrost are a real cause for concern. You can not add heat to matter without it warming up. Period. You have already had the phase change counter example to that bogus "dittohead science" claim. I already said with the exception of the obvious, so given that proviso, I am dead right. Period. Yes. Apart from when you are completely wrong your are dead right. You are a denier and a wilfully ignorant one at that. There is no 'dialled in' temperature rise. No idea what you mean by that. There is real energy stored in the system as a result of a phase change due to latent heat of vaporisation or fusion respectively depending on which phase change it is. And how is that heat going to get into the atmosphere and cause additional warming after thermal balance is achieved without the phase changing back? Which means cooling.... (I did say the obvious exception was unjustifiable, didn't I) When rising moist air condenses to clouds it releases the energy stored in its phase change at that point and it is the main mechanism that transfers energy from the ground into storms. Warmer more humid air carries considerably more water vapour than cooler air. If we hold the radiative balance as it is right now it isn't going to get any warmer because there is now more heat. Period. We are continually shifting the radiative balance by adding more CO2 and it will take time (ISTR a few decades) for the planet to fully respond to the changes we have already made in CO2 concentration. You don't get it do you. The 'thermal lag' idea says that even if we stop CO2 production, halt the imbalance as it is now, we will get another 0.5C temperature rise due to 'dialled in' warming. Which is correct. We have lit a fire under the planet and it will take time for that to work its way around the planet. It takes nearly two years for the CO2 mainly emitted in the northern hemisphere to reach the south pole! If you really don't understand this ridiculous theory, then here are some links: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Clim...nd-Effect.html "Scientists tell us that even if CO2 was stabilized at its current level of 390 ppm, there is at least another 0.6 degrees "in the pipeline". " Maybe 'in the pipe line' you have heard of, I have often read 'dialied in'. But what they say is correct even if you do not understand it. It is no different to saying if you put a pan of milk on a hot plate the milk does not boil instantly it takes time for the heat to distribute through the bulk liquid. Basicaly, alarmist science says that if the heat source is removed, temperature will continue to rise. The heat source is still there you ****wit. A working analogy is that CO2 is like throwing an extra quilt on your bed which improves insulation and decreases thermal losses. It takes time for the new equilibrium temperature to establish and that lag is several decades in the case of the Earth. There is a lot of heat capacity in a planet! I, and basic physics, say that's a load of crap. There is no 'in the pipeline' temperature rise. No! *Physicists* know what they are talking about and you don't. You are a paranoid right wing denier just like the other trolls on here. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 12:39:59 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/02/2014 14:21, matt_sykes wrote: On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 12:44:27 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote: On 18/02/2014 15:59, matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 16:37:13 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote: On 18/02/2014 14:21, matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: ... In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got 0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%. Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of ocean. Not this old crock again. There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter, its temperature increases. Period. Thermal inertia is a pretty good description of the cause of the lag between the net maximum heat input and the actual hottest day in a given climate. Actually it isn't. What you have is constant heat, pouring into matter, and it gets hotter and hotter, and as the sun goes past the zenith, the amount of heat pouring in gets less and less until it reaches the point at which the matter can release heat as quickly as it absorbs it, and reaches a maximum temperature. But the point here is that it matters what the matter is and how much of it there is. Oceans are powerful heat shunts and a warmer ocean surface will deliver a lot more water vapour into the atmosphere. No it doesn't. If you add heat to matter it gets warmer, period. (And please don't start a circular argument, phase change can not give us 'dialled in' temperature rise). But it takes time to reach equilibrium balance and the entire bulk of the planet has to warm up slightly for every change in GHG. This takes a seriously long time potentially decades. You don't really believe that if you turn an oven on it instantly reaches the temperature requested on the dial do you? A piece of thin aluminium foil on a thick polystyrene insulating surface gets hotter a lot faster than a thick slab of aluminium. It is all to do with the specific heat capacity of the object being heated. Engineers call this thermal inertia which isn't such a bad name for it. Actually its called specific heat capacity. Yes. But it illustrates the point which you are so wilfully trying not to grasp. namely: Oceans have a very high specific heat capacity compared to the atmosphere and an insanely long time to turn over their circulation. You also have the delaying effect of GH gasses in the atmosphere, WV principally, that absorb incoming solar IR and delay its arrival at the surface. This is unmitigated drivel. The atmosphere is largely transparent to the the bulk of the power containing peak wavelengths of incoming solar radiation at a characteristic temperature of 5500K. You are completely wrong. 505 of incoming solar energy is in the IR and plenty of it is in WV absorption bands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png You are an idiot. There is a fair amount of short wave IR and a few nibbles taken out of it by water vapour (and by ozone in the UV), but the bulk of the energy is in the visible band and near IR out to 1250nm. The longwave tail of IR around 10um contains comparatively little. The "delay" due to absorption and re-emission in the dense part of the atmosphere where water vapour exists is probably less than 1ms - completely irrelevant as far as determining the hottest time of day. So how does WV hold heat into the night if IR photons can travel through it so fast? The outgoing photons at night are peaked around 10um thermal IR band characteristic of the Earth's ~290K black body emission where the atmosphere is optically dense due to the WV and CO2 absorption lines. Outgoing photons have to run the gauntlet of a random walk along their mean free path diffusing back through the atmosphere to escape. Now tell me, once the heat has got into matter, changed it phase, yet not resulted in a temperature rise, how does that heat then go on to generate 'dialled in' temperature, a phrase so beloved of the 'thermal lag' ridiculousness. I have no idea what you are talking about with 'dialed in" temperature.. No? so what are you arguing about then, and go read skepticalscience, or just google it. The planet has a huge specific heat capacity and so if you change the radiation balance slightly it takes a long time to re-establish an equilibrium the climate will continue to warm for decades even if we could instantly stop putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. The thing you call "dialed in" temperature increase is because we have made it so that the Earth will have to warm up to redress the radiation imbalance but for that to happen the entirety of th eEarth has to warm slightly and that has a very long time constant. I sniped the rest of yours stuff, it was about feedbacks and totally irrelevant to this thread. Typical denier tactic to ignore any inconvenient physics that conflicts with your prejudices. No, it was just irrelevant waffle that had nothing to do with supposed 'thermal lag'. Albedo feedback from ice and snow in the northern hemisphere is one of the main reasons that a small increase in trapped heat gets amplified. The changes of insolation due to the variation in the Earths orbital elements are otherwise far too small to evoke glaciation. The receeding glaciers, snowlines and thawing of permafrost are a real cause for concern. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
... Does that mean that you're a left-winger Martin? I think these definitions have lost their meaning but I'm willing for you to describe to me what you mean by left and right. At the moment its clear a 'right-winger' is someone who doesn't wholeheartedly see temperature rise caused solely by humans and feels regardless of that rise its fairly benign and adaptable too. Please give me your thoughts on this. Lawrence, My 2d worth is that right wingers are conservatives. They don't want things to change. Moreover, they don't think things can change. The extremists, like Lord Lawson, think that the climate has not changed in their lifetime so it will not change in the future. Every exceptional event is just natural or sent by God, and is not part of a trend. Of course, some right wingers like you do admit that the climate is changing, but you, and certainly Matt, are not willing to accept that these changes could be catastrophic. The left wingers welcome change and revolutions. They look forward to catastrophe. That is not my point of view. I want to prevent it. Cheers, Alastair. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 13:39:59 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/02/2014 14:21, matt_sykes wrote: On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 12:44:27 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote: On 18/02/2014 15:59, matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 16:37:13 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote: On 18/02/2014 14:21, matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: ... In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got 0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%. Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of ocean. Not this old crock again. There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter, its temperature increases. Period. Thermal inertia is a pretty good description of the cause of the lag between the net maximum heat input and the actual hottest day in a given climate. Actually it isn't. What you have is constant heat, pouring into matter, and it gets hotter and hotter, and as the sun goes past the zenith, the amount of heat pouring in gets less and less until it reaches the point at which the matter can release heat as quickly as it absorbs it, and reaches a maximum temperature. But the point here is that it matters what the matter is and how much of it there is. Oceans are powerful heat shunts and a warmer ocean surface will deliver a lot more water vapour into the atmosphere. No it doesn't. If you add heat to matter it gets warmer, period. (And please don't start a circular argument, phase change can not give us 'dialled in' temperature rise). But it takes time to reach equilibrium balance and the entire bulk of the planet has to warm up slightly for every change in GHG. This takes a seriously long time potentially decades. You don't really believe that if you turn an oven on it instantly reaches the temperature requested on the dial do you? Of course not, but if you turn the heat off it doesn't get any hotter, does it! And that's what you are saying happens, or at least what SKS says. A piece of thin aluminium foil on a thick polystyrene insulating surface gets hotter a lot faster than a thick slab of aluminium. It is all to do with the specific heat capacity of the object being heated. Engineers call this thermal inertia which isn't such a bad name for it. Actually its called specific heat capacity. Yes. But it illustrates the point which you are so wilfully trying not to grasp. namely: Oceans have a very high specific heat capacity compared to the atmosphere and an insanely long time to turn over their circulation. You also have the delaying effect of GH gasses in the atmosphere, WV principally, that absorb incoming solar IR and delay its arrival at the surface. This is unmitigated drivel. The atmosphere is largely transparent to the the bulk of the power containing peak wavelengths of incoming solar radiation at a characteristic temperature of 5500K. You are completely wrong. 505 of incoming solar energy is in the IR and plenty of it is in WV absorption bands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png You are an idiot. There is a fair amount of short wave IR and a few nibbles taken out of it by water vapour (and by ozone in the UV), but the bulk of the energy is in the visible band and near IR out to 1250nm. You really are blind aren't you? Didn't you even read that Wiki link? 50% of incoming solar radiation is in the IR, and of that there are plenty of WV absorption bands. Why don't you look at the link, its clear enough. I notice though you start to use insults. I find alarmists do this wen they are pushed into a corner by logic and proof, prof such as I have supplied with the Wiki link. The longwave tail of IR around 10um contains comparatively little. The "delay" due to absorption and re-emission in the dense part of the atmosphere where water vapour exists is probably less than 1ms - completely irrelevant as far as determining the hottest time of day. So how does WV hold heat into the night if IR photons can travel through it so fast? The outgoing photons at night are peaked around 10um thermal IR band characteristic of the Earth's ~290K black body emission where the atmosphere is optically dense due to the WV and CO2 absorption lines. Ah, I see, wee one again go to that wiki link and look at the big fat WV absorption band in solar TOA IR. Outgoing photons have to run the gauntlet of a random walk along their mean free path diffusing back through the atmosphere to escape. Now tell me, once the heat has got into matter, changed it phase, yet not resulted in a temperature rise, how does that heat then go on to generate 'dialled in' temperature, a phrase so beloved of the 'thermal lag' ridiculousness. I have no idea what you are talking about with 'dialed in" temperature.. No? so what are you arguing about then, and go read skepticalscience, or just google it. The planet has a huge specific heat capacity Does global warming heat the earths core too? Of course not, so don't talk about the plant, talk about the troposphere. and so if you change the radiation balance slightly it takes a long time to re-establish an equilibrium Oh really? I thought the recent warming was supposed to have been the most rapid on record. I really with you lot would keep your story straight. You are a denier and a wilfully ignorant one at that. Oh dear, lame insults took over from logic and proof did they? It takes nearly two years for the CO2 mainly emitted in the northern hemisphere to reach the south pole! So what? Are you suggesting that CO2 isn't causing warming in the north right now? It is no different to saying if you put a pan of milk on a hot plate the milk does not boil instantly it takes time for the heat to distribute through the bulk liquid. So what? What you are saying is that after the heat source is removed the milk will continue to warm. That's wrong. Basicaly, alarmist science says that if the heat source is removed, temperature will continue to rise. The heat source is still there you ****wit. Here we go, see how I hit the nail on the head there and the alarmist resorted to swearing? A working analogy is that CO2 is like throwing an extra quilt on your bed which improves insulation and decreases thermal losses. This is absoloute coblers, CO2 is not an insulator, it is actually a heat sink, otherwise it would have no effect at night. As an analgogy it is misleading you, a blanket reduces the LOSS of heat via convection and conduction. This is nothing to do with GH gasses which INCREASE the heat in the system. That extra heat is immediately absorbed into the system and results in an immediate temperature rise exactly in line with the mater SHC. This is basic physics. A blanket however does NOT result in a temperature rise. As soon as no new heat enters the system, either through a new equilibrium temperature, or through a reduction of GH gasses, the temperature will stop rising. Period. You are a paranoid right wing denier just like the other trolls on here. Actually I am an Engineer who has probably studied and used more physics than you. Oh, and additional insults noted. It is simple Malcom, any heat energy absorbed by matter results in an immediate temperature rise. DO you agree? Your analogy of an oven is incorrect. You are raising its temperature a very long way from its current equilibrium. The troposphere is very different, its average temperature is being raised a tiny amount by CO2. But this is exceeded daily by the much larger temperature rise due to solar insolation.. It doesn't actually take a very long time to warm up. It takes a few hours. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On 20/02/2014 13:54, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 12:39:59 UTC, Martin Brown wrote: No! *Physicists* know what they are talking about and you don't. You are a paranoid right wing denier just like the other trolls on here. Does that mean that you're a left-winger Martin? I think these definitions have Not at all. And politics does not alter the physics. Nature is *THE* final arbiter here where climate change is concerned. lost their meaning but I'm willing for you to describe to me what you mean by left and right. At the moment its clear a 'right-winger' is someone who doesn't wholeheartedly see temperature rise caused solely by humans and feels regardless of that rise its fairly benign and adaptable too. Actually it is nowhere near as clear cut since the Stalinists through having a lot of Russian coal miners are also climate change deniers. They have a vested interest in selling more coal. Though you could argue that totalitarian right wing and left wing differ only in the exact detail of who they make into a demagogue. But in the West it is principally the territory of the far right in the form of "fat ugly Americans for a dead planet" sponsored by Exxon and other fossil fuel interests on US talk radio and internet blogs. Please give me your thoughts on this. Science is under a vicious attack from the far right and has to fight back. I fully expect politicians to blame scientists in the future for not explaining clearly what the consequences of their prevarication over AGW would be and the Daily Wail readers with less attention span than a goldfish lapping it up and then also blaming climate scientists. To some extent a bit more extreme weather would help focus minds even if it cannot be directly attributed to global warming yet - the Florida keys are ripe for being trashed by stronger hurricane storm surges with most of the land being only about 6m above sea level. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote in message ... So what? What you are saying is that after the heat source is removed the milk will continue to warm. That's wrong. Try turning the heat off under a pan of milk just before it boils. Cheers, Alastair. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 12:50:08 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote in message ... Heat may get locked away? Where is this mythical heat sink that for 100 years has been stealing heat from the atmosphere and which will suddenly release it to cause further warming as soon as we stop CO2 increasing? In the Warm Pool. When that releases its heat in an El Nino the whole of the globe will warm. Cheers, Alastair. Where is this 'Warm Pool' and you can provide evidence it has been warming as long as man has been producing CO2? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 15:41:19 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 20/02/2014 13:54, Lawrence Jenkins wrote: On Thursday, 20 February 2014 12:39:59 UTC, Martin Brown wrote: No! *Physicists* know what they are talking about and you don't. You are a paranoid right wing denier just like the other trolls on here. Does that mean that you're a left-winger Martin? I think these definitions have Not at all. And politics does not alter the physics. Nature is *THE* final arbiter here where climate change is concerned. Yet you are quite happy to, erroneously, call me a right winger because I think CO2 sensitivity is at the very bottom end of estimates, as born out by empirical data: 46%, 0.7C and not al of that is due to CO2. Nature has indeed shown us the facts. lost their meaning but I'm willing for you to describe to me what you mean by left and right. At the moment its clear a 'right-winger' is someone who doesn't wholeheartedly see temperature rise caused solely by humans and feels regardless of that rise its fairly benign and adaptable too. Actually it is nowhere near as clear cut since the Stalinists through having a lot of Russian coal miners are also climate change deniers. They have a vested interest in selling more coal. Though you could argue that totalitarian right wing and left wing differ only in the exact detail of who they make into a demagogue. But in the West it is principally the territory of the far right in the form of "fat ugly Americans for a dead planet" sponsored by Exxon and other fossil fuel interests on US talk radio and internet blogs. Please give me your thoughts on this. Science is under a vicious attack from the far right and has to fight back. I fully expect politicians to blame scientists in the future for not explaining clearly what the consequences of their prevarication over AGW would be and the Daily Wail readers with less attention span than a goldfish lapping it up and then also blaming climate scientists. To some extent a bit more extreme weather would help focus minds even if it cannot be directly attributed to global warming yet - the Florida keys are ripe for being trashed by stronger hurricane storm surges with most of the land being only about 6m above sea level. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
|
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
|
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT aproblem.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 00:58:55 -0800 (PST)
matt_sykes wrote: If you add heat to mater it gets warmer. Period. I thought pater warmed up mater, or maybe it was the milkman. -- Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'. "Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate." - BBC News subtitle |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On 20/02/2014 14:19, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message ... Does that mean that you're a left-winger Martin? I think these definitions have lost their meaning but I'm willing for you to describe to me what you mean by left and right. At the moment its clear a 'right-winger' is someone who doesn't wholeheartedly see temperature rise caused solely by humans and feels regardless of that rise its fairly benign and adaptable too. Please give me your thoughts on this. Lawrence, My 2d worth is that right wingers are conservatives. They don't want things to change. Moreover, they don't think things can change. The extremists, like Lord Lawson, think that the climate has not changed in their lifetime so it will not change in the future. Every exceptional event is just natural or sent by God, and is not part of a trend. Mostly they think the planet is ours to exploit and trash now for immediate short term profit and the kids can pay for it all tomorrow. That is Lawson's attitude - SKI principle (Spend the Kids Inheritance). Of course, some right wingers like you do admit that the climate is changing, but you, and certainly Matt, are not willing to accept that these changes could be catastrophic. The left I am not willing to accept that the changes will be catastrophic in the sense that you seem to mean. The planet will go on just fine as it is but parts of it near the equator will become very uncomfortably warm and some low lying and highly populous cities below mean sea level. I had the opportunity to torment one of the simpler GCMs once and set out to boil the oceans at the equator by adding an insane amount of CO2 as a single injection (ISTR 5000ppm was as high as it would let me go) That is a shade under 4 doublings from a nominal 350ppm starting point. It took it a while to settle down afterwards - about 200 years. There was still permanent ice at the South Pole despite my best efforts not much left on Greenland though. It may jump to a different attractor and paradoxically the UK could end up cooler in an on global average warmer world. It all depends on whether the Atlantic conveyor circulation (aka Gulf stream current) sustains. Our present climate is not at all typical for latitude 50-55N. wingers welcome change and revolutions. They look forward to catastrophe. That is not my point of view. I want to prevent it. Cheers, Alastair. I think you are tilting at windmills there. The catastrophe such as it will be is that the poor in some low lying developing countries will end up even more starving, destitute and homeless than they are already. Life in the developed world will go on although low lying land will have to be abandoned - that could include London, New York and Tokyo. We will probably be able to grow grapes and citrus trees outdoors in the UK in another hundred years (some grapes are already pretty good). California will find itself very short of water like the Australian outback as the Sierra snowpack is becoming unreliable and there is a limit to how hard you can pump the deep aquifers. http://www.news10.net/story/news/loc...rries/5253877/ We need a few more weather catastrophes to directly affect the USA since that is the only way they will ever get the message. Scientists have to stand up and fight against the dark forces of anti-science from the far right free market think tanks now. The deniers for hire have not been challenged often enough or hard enough. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: Good, so long as you agree that the 'in the pipeline' warming proposed by the likes of SKS is total junk I am happy. Well, no... the warming 'in the pipeline' is what we expect based on today's planetary energy imbalance. No, any warming in the future will be the result of a future imbalance. Yes that's true, but you're not putting things together properly. You state correctly that the climate will only warm up all the time there is an energy imbalance (more energy coming in than going out). You also agree that it takes time for the climate to warm up, given a certain input of energy. What you seem to be missing is the connection between the two - i.e. there will continue to be an energy imbalance until such time as temperature rises sufficiently to restore radiative equilibrium. The only way this can possibly *not* happen is if the imbalance is reduced by some other means - for example by reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases, or artificially increasing the Earth's albedo. While more heat enters than exits a system the temperature will rise, when there is balance it will stay the same, and when more leaves it will cool. That is basic physics. You are correct (apart from a small part of it going into phase change from ice to water as others have said, but that's not hugely significant). the process you describe, where heat can enter a system and not result in an immediate temperature change is impossible. But that's not what 'warming in the pipeline' means. I thought I'd explained this already. For every joule of energy you add to matter its temperature rises. you stop adding joules, it stops rising. period. Correct, but a planetary energy imbalance will persist, resulting in continuing warming, until such time as the warming is sufficient to restore radiative equilibrium. You need to think of this from the top-of-atmosphere perspective, which is all about radiative balance. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere reduces infrared radiation to space, causing an energy imbalance (more energy coming in from the sun than being radiated away to space). Assuming nothing else changes, the only possible consequence is that the climate system warms up enough so that it once again radiates enough to balance insolation, which takes time (decades to centuries). That is why we're all talking about the 'lag' or 'thermal inertia', and 'warming in the pipeline' - it's the warming that *has* to occur (because more energy is being absorbed than emitted) until radiative equilibrium is restored. Makes sense, yes? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 16:45:21 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article , says... the process you describe, where heat can enter a system and not result in an immediate temperature change is impossible. If this is the standard of your scientific nous then I think it is safe to ignore anything else you say in this group, on the basis that just about everything else that is discussed here is above Year 1 physics. I was 11 when I did the experiment in school that proves otherwise. Don't tell me, phase change? I already mentioned that as the obvious, and for obvious reasons, unusable excuse for lack of temperature rise. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 19:37:00 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: Good, so long as you agree that the 'in the pipeline' warming proposed by the likes of SKS is total junk I am happy. Well, no... the warming 'in the pipeline' is what we expect based on today's planetary energy imbalance. No, any warming in the future will be the result of a future imbalance. Yes that's true, but you're not putting things together properly. You state correctly that the climate will only warm up all the time there is an energy imbalance (more energy coming in than going out). You also agree that it takes time for the climate to warm up, given a certain input of energy. What you seem to be missing is the connection between the two - i.e. there will continue to be an energy imbalance until such time as temperature rises sufficiently to restore radiative equilibrium. This time you speak of is the time it takes a photon of energy to travel from the surface of the earth to outside of the system of course. The extra photon is the heat back radiated by CO2, and energy balance achieved when it leaves the system. Just how long do you think that takes? You might consider this too. Every morning the troposphere heats up far more in a few hours than the expected warming from CO2. The only way this can possibly *not* happen is if the imbalance is reduced by some other means - for example by reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases, or artificially increasing the Earth's albedo. While more heat enters than exits a system the temperature will rise, when there is balance it will stay the same, and when more leaves it will cool. That is basic physics. You are correct (apart from a small part of it going into phase change from ice to water as others have said, but that's not hugely significant). I did already say that this was the exception, and for obvious reasons cant be used to explain the 'heat in the pipeline' theory which I am attacking here. the process you describe, where heat can enter a system and not result in an immediate temperature change is impossible. But that's not what 'warming in the pipeline' means. I thought I'd explained this already. For every joule of energy you add to matter its temperature rises. you stop adding joules, it stops rising. period. Correct, but a planetary energy imbalance will persist, resulting in continuing warming, Only so longs as joules are added to the system. until such time as the warming is sufficient to restore radiative equilibrium. You need to think of this from the top-of-atmosphere perspective, which is all about radiative balance. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere reduces infrared radiation to space, causing an energy imbalance (more energy coming in from the sun than being radiated away to space). Assuming nothing else changes, the only possible consequence is that the climate system warms up enough so that it once again radiates enough to balance insolation, Which is does every morning and takes about 5 hours to reach. Thermal lag is the down to the conductivity of a substance. Take a mass of mater, heat one end, then turn the heat off. Assume no losses of heat from the mass. The part the flame touched is hot, the part on the opposite side of the mass is cool. It takes time for the heat to go from the hot part to the cool part. This is thermal lag in its true, engineering sense. (Not the hot part got cooler) So thermal lag on the earth is the time taken for heat to get from the surface to space. And that's a few hours as I just pointed out. What the 'heat in the pipeline' theory says is that if we stop adding heat the entire system will continue to warm for 50 years or whatever, by 0.5 C. This is clearly a load of crap. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 16:12:41 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote in message ... So what? What you are saying is that after the heat source is removed the milk will continue to warm. That's wrong. Try turning the heat off under a pan of milk just before it boils. Ah, but the metal of the pan is the heat source to the milk, not the flame isn't it, so you haven't removed the heat source have you. This is typical of the kind of imprecise erroneous thinking that leads people to believe in the idea of thermal lag. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 16:57:09 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:
In article , matt_sykes writes Actually I am an Engineer who has probably studied and used more physics than you. But can't work out attributions. I attribute in part the extra energy to CO2. Just like the IPCC. The fact I tend to wards the bottom end of forcing estimates makes me sceptical, but quite capable of arriving at the same attributions as they do. :) It is simple Malcom, any heat energy absorbed by matter results in an immediate temperature rise. DO you agree? Wrong person. There have been about 40 posts since I last contributed to this thread. :) OK. Wrong person. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 16:50:12 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article , says... How does heat input NOT result in an immediate temperature rise? When the energy is being used for a different purpose, such as changing the state of matter I already mentioned phase change, and said it is a process which can not be used to explain the 'heat in the pipeline' theory proposed by the likes of SKS. [...] If you add heat to mater it gets warmer. Period. Stop saying that! It really really does make you look like a complete idiot. Funny. I would have thought you would have welcomed me making a fool of myself so perhaps you don't really think that but that you just dislike the obviousness of that statement and the fact it destroys the 'heat in the pipeline;' theory. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 17:45:44 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 00:58:55 -0800 (PST) matt_sykes wrote: If you add heat to mater it gets warmer. Period. I thought pater warmed up mater, or maybe it was the milkman. I never claimed to be a typist, did I, :) |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On 21/02/2014 07:24, matt_sykes wrote:
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 19:37:00 UTC+1, Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: For every joule of energy you add to matter its temperature rises. you stop adding joules, it stops rising. period. Correct, but a planetary energy imbalance will persist, resulting in continuing warming, Only so longs as joules are added to the system. Yes. And the sun rises every day and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere remains the same so that slightly more of the suns heat is trapped on the planet than would otherwise be the case. You seem to think that the CO2 concentration is the heat! It isn't. CO2 determines the proportion of the suns input that the Earth retains and that is what was called the greenhouse effect. until such time as the warming is sufficient to restore radiative equilibrium. You need to think of this from the top-of-atmosphere perspective, which is all about radiative balance. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere reduces infrared radiation to space, causing an energy imbalance (more energy coming in from the sun than being radiated away to space). Assuming nothing else changes, the only possible consequence is that the climate system warms up enough so that it once again radiates enough to balance insolation, Which is does every morning and takes about 5 hours to reach. No it doesn't. The changes in CO2 in the atmosphere take nearly two years to diffuse around the globe and the change in radiation balance would take a few decades *at least* to come anywhere close to being near to its new equilibrium. If we could magically hold CO2 at present levels it would take decades before the system came back to a long term equilibrium. Thermal lag is the down to the conductivity of a substance. Rubbish the thermal lag is due to its total specific heat capacity. So thermal lag on the earth is the time taken for heat to get from the surface to space. And that's a few hours as I just pointed out. No it isn't it is the time taken when the daily heat energy trapped in the system is increased by some percentage for that increased *daily* retained energy input to be fully equilibrated into the system. This requires several ocean turnover times and isn't complete even then. What the 'heat in the pipeline' theory says is that if we stop adding heat the entire system will continue to warm for 50 years or whatever, by 0.5 C. The heat is literally in the pipeline. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is like additional insulation. It traps an extra proportion of the suns heat *every* day in perpetuity (at least until the CO2 is turned into chalk by marine micro-organisms). This is clearly a load of crap. You are bull****ting and have no clue what you are talking about. Your bluff and bluster might cut it on denier blogs but is entirely out of place on a science newsgroup. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"Martin Brown" wrote in message ... Mostly they think the planet is ours to exploit and trash now for immediate short term profit and the kids can pay for it all tomorrow. That is Lawson's attitude - SKI principle (Spend the Kids Inheritance). IMHO, most conservatives do not think like that. They think, like Lawrence, that they are improving the world and that the resources will last forever. When any do run out, mankind is resourceful enough to find alternatives. They beleieve that growth is neccessary to create full employment and lift the poor out of poverty. Of course, the growth under the last Labour government ended up in unemployment and food and fuel poverty, viz. the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I am not willing to accept that the changes will be catastrophic in the sense that you seem to mean. The planet will go on just fine as it is but parts of it near the equator will become very uncomfortably warm and some low lying and highly populous cities below mean sea level. I am not sure you are correct. The warming seems to be causing polar amplification, and I suspect that the tropics may cool due to an increase in cloud and rain producing a new tropical pluvial. BTW, I have just found this re British pluvials from 2011, three years before the present flooding: http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2011/11/pluvial-flooding I had the opportunity to torment one of the simpler GCMs once and set out to boil the oceans at the equator by adding an insane amount of CO2 as a single injection (ISTR 5000ppm was as high as it would let me go) That is a shade under 4 doublings from a nominal 350ppm starting point. It took it a while to settle down afterwards - about 200 years. There was still permanent ice at the South Pole despite my best efforts not much left on Greenland though. My problem with that is I know that the GCMs are wrong! They cannot replicate past abrupt climate change, and so are unable to predict abrupt climate changes in the future. This week, after over ten years of investigations, I have identified where the problem is, but I doubt that anyone will believe me :-( It may jump to a different attractor and paradoxically the UK could end up cooler in an on global average warmer world. It all depends on whether the Atlantic conveyor circulation (aka Gulf stream current) sustains. Our present climate is not at all typical for latitude 50-55N. Our climate is typical for a maritime climate but not for a continental type. So we need the Jet Stream to reverse, not the Gulf Stream, for that to change. Cheers, Alastair. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On 20/02/2014 14:38, matt_sykes wrote:
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 13:39:59 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote: But it takes time to reach equilibrium balance and the entire bulk of the planet has to warm up slightly for every change in GHG. This takes a seriously long time potentially decades. You don't really believe that if you turn an oven on it instantly reaches the temperature requested on the dial do you? Of course not, but if you turn the heat off it doesn't get any hotter, does it! Try it and see. I think you will be surprised. The time constants between the rather hotter elements and the bulk of the oven are such that removing power from the elements will limit the future temperature rise but the oven volume will get hotter as the heat from the elements diffuses into the space. Air has a very low specific heat. And that's what you are saying happens, or at least what SKS says. It is also what happens in practice when you have real physical systems with finite heat capacities. A piece of thin aluminium foil on a thick polystyrene insulating surface gets hotter a lot faster than a thick slab of aluminium. It is all to do with the specific heat capacity of the object being heated. Engineers call this thermal inertia which isn't such a bad name for it. Actually its called specific heat capacity. Yes. But it illustrates the point which you are so wilfully trying not to grasp. namely: Oceans have a very high specific heat capacity compared to the atmosphere and an insanely long time to turn over their circulation. You are completely wrong. 505 of incoming solar energy is in the IR and plenty of it is in WV absorption bands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png You are an idiot. There is a fair amount of short wave IR and a few nibbles taken out of it by water vapour (and by ozone in the UV), but the bulk of the energy is in the visible band and near IR out to 1250nm. You really are blind aren't you? Didn't you even read that Wiki link? 50% of incoming solar radiation is in the IR, and of that there are plenty of WV absorption bands. Why don't you look at the link, its clear enough. No it is you who are deliberately misinterprettign it and demonstrating your wilful ignorance for all to see. Your rants might cut it a denier blog but they have no place on a science group. I notice though you start to use insults. I find alarmists do this wen they are pushed into a corner by logic and proof, prof such as I have supplied with the Wiki link. That is because you are attempting to argue using gibberish and I am not inclined to suffer fools gladly. This Log-log graph shows the relative intensities and wavelengths of solar and Earth black body radiation on the same graph. http://www1.infraredtraining.com/upl...nck_curves.gif The energy per photon is hc/lambda which means that the graph of luminous intnesity understates the energy delivered. The planet has a huge specific heat capacity Does global warming heat the earths core too? It slightly slows down the loss of heat from it but it would be beyond measurement techniques to determine it. and so if you change the radiation balance slightly it takes a long time to re-establish an equilibrium Oh really? I thought the recent warming was supposed to have been the most rapid on record. Compared with normal geological processes it is. I really with you lot would keep your story straight. Your sarcasm is noted. You are a denier and a wilfully ignorant one at that. Oh dear, lame insults took over from logic and proof did they? You are severely trying my patience. I have tried more than once to explain the physics and yet you remain wilfully ignorant like the typical denier that you are. It takes nearly two years for the CO2 mainly emitted in the northern hemisphere to reach the south pole! So what? Are you suggesting that CO2 isn't causing warming in the north right now? I am pointing out that the timescales for the Earth coming into thermal equilibrium as a result of the CO2 we have already added is *very* long indeed - at least several decades even if we could keep CO2 levels constant. It is no different to saying if you put a pan of milk on a hot plate the milk does not boil instantly it takes time for the heat to distribute through the bulk liquid. So what? What you are saying is that after the heat source is removed the milk will continue to warm. That's wrong. Why don't you try it and see with a pan of milk on an electric ring. Remember to clean up afterwards or you wife will kill you. Basicaly, alarmist science says that if the heat source is removed, temperature will continue to rise. The heat source is still there you ****wit. Here we go, see how I hit the nail on the head there and the alarmist resorted to swearing? The CO2 is there every day trapping a proportion of the suns heat. Until there has been time for that heat to be distributed through the entire planetary system an in particular the deep ocean the consequences of the CO2 emissions have not equilibrated. This includes the results of feedbacks which tend to enhance the effects of any CO2 notably that fresh snow has a very high albedo and open water or earth does not. A working analogy is that CO2 is like throwing an extra quilt on your bed which improves insulation and decreases thermal losses. This is absoloute coblers, CO2 is not an insulator, it is actually a heat sink, otherwise it would have no effect at night. It is an insulator in the context of a planetary atmosphere as it prevents a fair proportion of outgoing thermal IR characteristic of the Earth's ~290K tempaerature escaping freely to space. The Earth's temperature in the absorption bands it determined by the surface of last scattering high in the atmosphere where the density is such that the mean free path of a photon takes it out of the atmosphere. As an analgogy it is misleading you, a blanket reduces the LOSS of heat via convection and conduction. This is nothing to do with GH gasses which INCREASE the heat in the system. OK then since you insist on one based on radiation the InSn coating on low pressure sodium lamps which boosts their operating temperature by preventing a strong IR line from escaping from the glass envelope. See http://edisontechcenter.org/SodiumLamps.html (line just above HPS) That extra heat is immediately absorbed into the system and results in an immediate temperature rise exactly in line with the mater SHC. This is basic physics. A blanket however does NOT result in a temperature rise. It does if there is a heat source underneath it (or if heat is being supplied from outside in the case of the Earth by the sun). As soon as no new heat enters the system, either through a new equilibrium temperature, or through a reduction of GH gasses, the temperature will stop rising. Period. This sentence makes no sense at all. You are rambling incoherently. You are a paranoid right wing denier just like the other trolls on here. Actually I am an Engineer who has probably studied and used more physics than you. You manage to disguise your knowledge of physics very well. Oh, and additional insults noted. I very much doubt that. It is up to others to determine who they should believe. I seek only to make sure that the scientific viewpoint is not obliterated by ignorant ranters and their dittohead antiscience. It is simple Malcom, any heat energy absorbed by matter results in an immediate temperature rise. DO you agree? Of course not. It is critical whether or not there is a phase change. Your analogy of an oven is incorrect. You are raising its temperature a very long way from its current equilibrium. The troposphere is very different, its average temperature is being raised a tiny amount by CO2. But this is exceeded daily by the much larger temperature rise due to solar insolation. It doesn't actually take a very long time to warm up. It takes a few hours. I will leave you to wallow in your arrogant ignorance. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT aproblem.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:27:24 -0000
"Alastair McDonald" wrote: It may jump to a different attractor and paradoxically the UK could end up cooler in an on global average warmer world. It all depends on whether the Atlantic conveyor circulation (aka Gulf stream current) sustains. Our present climate is not at all typical for latitude 50-55N. Our climate is typical for a maritime climate but not for a continental type. So we need the Jet Stream to reverse, not the Gulf Stream, for that to change. Changes in the circulation of the currents in the North Atlantic are known (or were known; most scientists seem to have forgotten about it) to have been associated with cold epochs in NW Europe. This did not mean that NW Europe had a continental climate but one much colder than it now enjoys. The circulation in the North Atlantic is bi-stable and, in the past, has flipped suddenly from one stable state to the other. At the moment, we have a warm North Atlantic Drift current breaking away from the GS circulation and flowing NE-wards past the UK. When the circulation flips to the other state, the GS circulation no longer has the oomph to generate the NAD and that is then replaced by a continuation of the Labrador current. The UK would still have a maritime climate but the air would be flowing over a much colder sea than it does now. -- Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'. "Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate." - BBC News subtitle |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Friday, 21 February 2014 22:30:23 UTC+13, Martin Brown wrote:
I will leave you to wallow in your arrogant ignorance. -- Regards, Martin Brown Congratulations on an elegant demolition of the pseudo-scientific claptrap mouthed by this arrogant obnoxious troll. City-data could do with a few of your calibre to do the same for the ignorant lurkers there, who have been very active of late. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
Togless wrote: ... there will continue to be an energy imbalance until such time as temperature rises sufficiently to restore radiative equilibrium. This time you speak of is the time it takes a photon of energy to travel from the surface of the earth to outside of the system of course. No, it's the time it takes for the climate system to warm up by a certain amount - typically decades to centuries. As an example, you say that a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ will cause around 1°C of global warming without feedbacks. How long would you expect that to take? As a very rough calculation: The oceans comprise 1 billion cubic kilometres of water, and the energy imbalance caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ is 3.7W/m², or 1.88*10^15 joules per second for the whole planet. The energy needed to raise 1 billion cubic kilometres of ocean by 1°C is 5.5*10^24 joules. So according to your 'no feedback' figure it would take a minimum of 93 years for the no-feedback warming of 1°C to be achieved (by all means check my calculation). In practice it would take longer, because the imbalance declines as the planet warms, so the rate of warming declines too. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"Graham P Davis" wrote in message news:20140221101601.1de9d713@home-1... On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:27:24 -0000 "Alastair McDonald" wrote: It may jump to a different attractor and paradoxically the UK could end up cooler in an on global average warmer world. It all depends on whether the Atlantic conveyor circulation (aka Gulf stream current) sustains. Our present climate is not at all typical for latitude 50-55N. Our climate is typical for a maritime climate but not for a continental type. So we need the Jet Stream to reverse, not the Gulf Stream, for that to change. Changes in the circulation of the currents in the North Atlantic are known (or were known; most scientists seem to have forgotten about it) to have been associated with cold epochs in NW Europe. This did not mean that NW Europe had a continental climate but one much colder than it now enjoys. The circulation in the North Atlantic is bi-stable and, in the past, has flipped suddenly from one stable state to the other. At the moment, we have a warm North Atlantic Drift current breaking away from the GS circulation and flowing NE-wards past the UK. When the circulation flips to the other state, the GS circulation no longer has the oomph to generate the NAD and that is then replaced by a continuation of the Labrador current. The UK would still have a maritime climate but the air would be flowing over a much colder sea than it does now. The idea was that the mega proglacial Lake Agassiz burst out through the Gulf of St Lawrence and halted the thermohaline ocean circulation. But it has not been possible to find evidnece for that event, and it seems that the THC was pushed further south and not halted. It has been pointed out in the RMet journal, and by Philip Eden, that the mild British Climate is due to the southwesterlies and not the North Atlantic Drift. My theory is that the sea ice, which is know to have reached Ireland, expanded out of the Arctic and altered the (North) British climate from maritime into continental. Don't forget the Younger Dryas was when the air temperatures changed. A climatic event rather than a switch of deep ocean currents seems more likely cause, IMHO. Cheers, Alastair. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On 21/02/2014 09:27, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message ... Mostly they think the planet is ours to exploit and trash now for immediate short term profit and the kids can pay for it all tomorrow. That is Lawson's attitude - SKI principle (Spend the Kids Inheritance). IMHO, most conservatives do not think like that. They think, like Lawrence, that they are improving the world and that the resources will last forever. When any do run out, mankind is resourceful enough to find alternatives. I suspect they don't think at all. Greed is the only thing they know. I am not willing to accept that the changes will be catastrophic in the sense that you seem to mean. The planet will go on just fine as it is but parts of it near the equator will become very uncomfortably warm and some low lying and highly populous cities below mean sea level. I am not sure you are correct. I am reasonably happy that I am correct and that the simulations now are not that far off the mark. Earlier models used to predict too much rain in the sahara and various other funny quirks. I had the opportunity to torment one of the simpler GCMs once and set out to boil the oceans at the equator by adding an insane amount of CO2 as a single injection (ISTR 5000ppm was as high as it would let me go) That is a shade under 4 doublings from a nominal 350ppm starting point. It took it a while to settle down afterwards - about 200 years. There was still permanent ice at the South Pole despite my best efforts not much left on Greenland though. My problem with that is I know that the GCMs are wrong! They cannot replicate past abrupt climate change, and so are unable to predict abrupt climate changes in the future. This week, after over ten years of investigations, I have identified where the problem is, but I doubt that anyone will believe me :-( The GCMs are not perfect and they can never be but they are good enough to permit realistic simulations of future scenarios and strategies. It may jump to a different attractor and paradoxically the UK could end up cooler in an on global average warmer world. It all depends on whether the Atlantic conveyor circulation (aka Gulf stream current) sustains. Our present climate is not at all typical for latitude 50-55N. Our climate is typical for a maritime climate but not for a continental type. So we need the Jet Stream to reverse, not the Gulf Stream, for that to change. It is typical of a maritime climate but only with a huge boost of heat from the prevailing wind over a warm Gulf stream current. There are palm trees on west coast of Scotland! We should be a tundra climate. The people who went off to the Falklands expecting that 51.5S would have a similar climate to 51.5N got a bit of a surprise! Compare for example Port Stanley and Heathrow both as near as damn it at 51.5 degrees but in opposite hemispheres: Property Heathrow Port Stanley Record min -14 -11 UK can get continental cold wind Avg winter min 2 -1 ~3C cooler avg winter Avg summer max 14 24 ~10C cooler avg summer Record Max 37 24 Source UK MetO & Wiki So basically an average summers day at Heathrow would be record breaking hot weather in Port Stanley and that is despite the southern hemisphere summer sunshine being about 6% stronger due to orbital eccentricity of 0.0167. If our nice warm current ever fails the UK will be a slightly worse off than the Falklands with a tundra climate. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Friday, 21 February 2014 10:00:52 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/02/2014 07:24, matt_sykes wrote: On Thursday, 20 February 2014 19:37:00 UTC+1, Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: For every joule of energy you add to matter its temperature rises. you stop adding joules, it stops rising. period. Correct, but a planetary energy imbalance will persist, resulting in continuing warming, Only so longs as joules are added to the system. Yes. And the sun rises every day and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere remains the same so that slightly more of the suns heat is trapped on the planet than would otherwise be the case. You seem to think that the CO2 concentration is the heat! Actually it is the source of the extra heat since it is the CO2 that absorbs and back radiates the photon of IR. It isn't. CO2 determines the proportion of the suns input that the Earth retains and that is what was called the greenhouse effect. until such time as the warming is sufficient to restore radiative equilibrium. You need to think of this from the top-of-atmosphere perspective, which is all about radiative balance. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere reduces infrared radiation to space, causing an energy imbalance (more energy coming in from the sun than being radiated away to space). Assuming nothing else changes, the only possible consequence is that the climate system warms up enough so that it once again radiates enough to balance insolation, Which is does every morning and takes about 5 hours to reach. No it doesn't. Last time I noticed it took about 5 hours or so from dawn fort the troposphere to warm up. Which planet are you living on? The changes in CO2 in the atmosphere take nearly two years to diffuse around the globe So what? During that time it is adding more heat in areas it is more concentrated in, and less heat in areas it is less concentrated in. The total heat added is the same, regardless of where the CO2 is. and the change in radiation balance would take a few decades *at least* to come anywhere close to being near to its new equilibrium. So how does the surface and troposphere reach a radiation balance at a temperature 10 degrees C higher in a matter of hours after the sun rises? Really, your statement is patent garbage. If we could magically hold CO2 at present levels it would take decades before the system came back to a long term equilibrium. Bull****. It would take a few hours. The earth does that every morning. Thermal lag is the down to the conductivity of a substance. Rubbish the thermal lag is due to its total specific heat capacity. No, that determines hoe hot it will get for a given heat input. Thermal lag, the time taken for it to heat completely across its entire mass, is determined by its thermal conductivity. So thermal lag on the earth is the time taken for heat to get from the surface to space. And that's a few hours as I just pointed out. No it isn't it is the time taken when the daily heat energy trapped in the system is increased by some percentage for that increased *daily* retained energy input to be fully equilibrated into the system. Since the troposphere experiences night and day then heat is never 'fully equilibrated'. It is always wandering around, following the sun. This requires several ocean turnover times and isn't complete even then. Ah, back to the oceans again are we. And the oceans are what, barely warming, at a depth of 700 meters. And didn't I read somewhere that only one is warming? Anyway, lets just focus on the troposphere shall we, since we do at least have reasonable data for that going back over a reasonable time and covering a reasonable amount of the earths surface. What the 'heat in the pipeline' theory says is that if we stop adding heat the entire system will continue to warm for 50 years or whatever, by 0.5 C. The heat is literally in the pipeline. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is like additional insulation. It traps an extra proportion of the suns heat *every* day in perpetuity. Oh, so you are saying that even if CO2 stays the same it traps ever increasing amounts of IR photons in the troposphere? (at least until the CO2 is turned into chalk by marine micro-organisms). This is clearly a load of crap. You are bull****ting and have no clue what you are talking about. Your bluff and bluster might cut it on denier blogs but is entirely out of place on a science newsgroup. That's the kind of personal attack I expect from someone pushed into a corner by logic and facts. Keep it up, it makes me know I am winning. :) -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:32:30 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/02/2014 09:27, Alastair McDonald wrote: "Martin Brown" wrote in message ... Mostly they think the planet is ours to exploit and trash now for immediate short term profit and the kids can pay for it all tomorrow. That is Lawson's attitude - SKI principle (Spend the Kids Inheritance). IMHO, most conservatives do not think like that. They think, like Lawrence, that they are improving the world and that the resources will last forever. When any do run out, mankind is resourceful enough to find alternatives. I suspect they don't think at all. Greed is the only thing they know. I am not willing to accept that the changes will be catastrophic in the sense that you seem to mean. The planet will go on just fine as it is but parts of it near the equator will become very uncomfortably warm and some low lying and highly populous cities below mean sea level. I am not sure you are correct. I am reasonably happy that I am correct and that the simulations now are not that far off the mark. Earlier models used to predict too much rain in the sahara and various other funny quirks. I had the opportunity to torment one of the simpler GCMs once and set out to boil the oceans at the equator by adding an insane amount of CO2 as a single injection (ISTR 5000ppm was as high as it would let me go) That is a shade under 4 doublings from a nominal 350ppm starting point. It took it a while to settle down afterwards - about 200 years. There was still permanent ice at the South Pole despite my best efforts not much left on Greenland though. My problem with that is I know that the GCMs are wrong! They cannot replicate past abrupt climate change, and so are unable to predict abrupt climate changes in the future. This week, after over ten years of investigations, I have identified where the problem is, but I doubt that anyone will believe me :-( The GCMs are not perfect and they can never be but they are good enough to permit realistic simulations of future scenarios and strategies. It may jump to a different attractor and paradoxically the UK could end up cooler in an on global average warmer world. It all depends on whether the Atlantic conveyor circulation (aka Gulf stream current) sustains. Our present climate is not at all typical for latitude 50-55N. Our climate is typical for a maritime climate but not for a continental type. So we need the Jet Stream to reverse, not the Gulf Stream, for that to change. It is typical of a maritime climate but only with a huge boost of heat from the prevailing wind over a warm Gulf stream current. There are palm trees on west coast of Scotland! We should be a tundra climate. The people who went off to the Falklands expecting that 51.5S would have a similar climate to 51.5N got a bit of a surprise! Compare for example Port Stanley and Heathrow both as near as damn it at 51.5 degrees but in opposite hemispheres: Property Heathrow Port Stanley Record min -14 -11 UK can get continental cold wind Avg winter min 2 -1 ~3C cooler avg winter Avg summer max 14 24 ~10C cooler avg summer I think you might have these the wrong way round. -- Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd. http://www.sandrila.co.uk/ twitter: @sandrilaLtd |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Friday, 21 February 2014 11:50:24 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: Togless wrote: ... there will continue to be an energy imbalance until such time as temperature rises sufficiently to restore radiative equilibrium. This time you speak of is the time it takes a photon of energy to travel from the surface of the earth to outside of the system of course. No, Yes. I am talking about true thermal lag, as defined by engineers, the thermal conductivity of matter and not the 'thermal lag' or the 'in the pipeline warming' loved by the likes of SKS. What you are talking about is the later. Google thermal lag, the engineers kind, and you will see what I mean. 's the time it takes for the climate system to warm up by a certain amount - typically decades to centuries. As an example, you say that a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ will cause around 1°C of global warming without feedbacks. How long would you expect that to take? How long does it take the surface and lower troposphere to warm by 10 C each morning when the sun comes up? An additional CO2 forcing will have an immediate effect on temperature. Why do YOU think the suns photons can warm the ground in a few hours, and yet CO2 photons cant? Whats the difference, wheres the magic? As a very rough calculation: The oceans comprise Ocean warming is irrelevant. What ever heat goes in to them stays there and isn't going to get into the atmosphere to give the 0.5C that sites like SKS say will be added to the surface temperatures even of we stop CO2 increase. Heck, even this website says that, and it is alarmist as hell, since its run by Hansens side kick: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-heat-content/ "Neither is this heat going to come back out from the deep ocean any time soon (the notion that this heat is the warming that is ‘in the pipeline’ is erroneous)." What you need to focus on is this. GW is all about the warming of the surface and the near surface air temps. And that is where SKS says the additional 0.5C will happen even if we halt CO2. Now, even if heat had gone into the oceans as well during this time, how is that heat going to get from the oceans into the atmosphere in a single step, permanent fashion? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT aproblem.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:26:08 -0000
"Alastair McDonald" wrote: "Graham P Davis" wrote in message news:20140221101601.1de9d713@home-1... On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:27:24 -0000 "Alastair McDonald" wrote: It may jump to a different attractor and paradoxically the UK could end up cooler in an on global average warmer world. It all depends on whether the Atlantic conveyor circulation (aka Gulf stream current) sustains. Our present climate is not at all typical for latitude 50-55N. Our climate is typical for a maritime climate but not for a continental type. So we need the Jet Stream to reverse, not the Gulf Stream, for that to change. Changes in the circulation of the currents in the North Atlantic are known (or were known; most scientists seem to have forgotten about it) to have been associated with cold epochs in NW Europe. This did not mean that NW Europe had a continental climate but one much colder than it now enjoys. The circulation in the North Atlantic is bi-stable and, in the past, has flipped suddenly from one stable state to the other. At the moment, we have a warm North Atlantic Drift current breaking away from the GS circulation and flowing NE-wards past the UK. When the circulation flips to the other state, the GS circulation no longer has the oomph to generate the NAD and that is then replaced by a continuation of the Labrador current. The UK would still have a maritime climate but the air would be flowing over a much colder sea than it does now. The idea was that the mega proglacial Lake Agassiz burst out through the Gulf of St Lawrence and halted the thermohaline ocean circulation. But it has not been possible to find evidnece for that event, and it seems that the THC was pushed further south and not halted. It has been pointed out in the RMet journal, and by Philip Eden, that the mild British Climate is due to the southwesterlies and not the North Atlantic Drift. When you say "the idea was", I assume that you are referring to the fuss made about a decade ago about the discovery of the ocean conveyor belt. The scientists involved also claimed other discoveries that, strangely, I'd read about over thirty years before they "discovered" them. One included the shock when they "discovered" from ice cores that changes in climate had been sudden. What a pity they hadn't read the same book as I did - or had they? - as it might have saved them some work. The bi-stable status of the North Atlantic circulation was known about fifty years ago; the only thing that they didn't know was what caused it. Their best guess at the time was that the Gulf Stream circulation weakened after a change in the atmospheric circulation - a weakening of the sub-tropical high. It may be that the ocean conveyor was the cause or it may be unrelated - unlikely, I know. Philip Eden is correct in saying that the mild climate isn't "caused" by the NAD, but it's incorrect to take this as meaning that a change or cessation of the NAD would have no effect on our climate. I've seen several cases where a 1-2C cooling of the Atlantic between Labrador and Ireland has had a marked effect on our weather and it would be stupid to say that a much larger and prolonged drop in sea temperature in that region would have no effect on the climate of NW Europe. My theory is that the sea ice, which is know to have reached Ireland, expanded out of the Arctic and altered the (North) British climate from maritime into continental. Don't forget the Younger Dryas was when the air temperatures changed. A climatic event rather than a switch of deep ocean currents seems more likely cause, IMHO. One effect of an NAD shut-down would probably be a more maritime climate with stronger westerlies, somewhat like we've seen this winter, but with much lower temperatures. I'm not sure whether the changes in NAD to which I was referring were tied into the Younger Dryas event or other changes in Europe's climate; remembering all the details from a book read over forty years ago is not always easy. -- Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'. "Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate." - BBC News subtitle |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
.... How long does it take the surface and lower troposphere to warm by 10 C each morning when the sun comes up? That's not relevant to this discussion. We're talking about heating up the entire climate system, including the oceans, which requires something on the order of 10^24 joules per degree C. The current planetary energy imbalance of 0.6W/m² means that the Earth is gaining 3*10^14 joules per second, so you can immediately see why it takes many decades to raise global temperature by 1 degree with that kind of energy imbalance, not minutes or hours. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Friday, 21 February 2014 22:22:40 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: ... How long does it take the surface and lower troposphere to warm by 10 C each morning when the sun comes up? That's not relevant to this discussion. We're talking about heating up the entire climate system, No we arent actually, we are talking about surface temperatures, thats what GW is all about, and thats what CC is all about. And that is what I am talking about here, not ocean warming, but the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere and its potential impact on life. including the oceans, which requires something on the order of 10^24 joules per degree C. The current planetary energy imbalance of 0.6W/m² means that the Earth is gaining 3*10^14 joules per second, so you can immediately see why it takes many decades to raise global temperature by 1 degree with that kind of energy imbalance, not minutes or hours. And this was built into the GCMs was it? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:48 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk