|
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk