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.
 

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.


--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

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

[...]
If you add heat to mater it gets warmer. Period.

Stop saying that! It really really does make you look like a complete
idiot.


--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

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.