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

Weather Banter (https://www.weather-banter.co.uk/)

- uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (https://www.weather-banter.co.uk/uk-sci-weather-uk-weather/)

- - Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem. (https://www.weather-banter.co.uk/uk-sci-weather-uk-weather/174037-why-storms-can-not-due-co2-why-gw-not-problem.html)

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 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.