Expected rate of loss of heat not consistent with GH gasses

[matt_sykes]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooling-based-on-ncdc-station-record-data/#more-86438

A bit of logic and physics here, more GH gass would cause a lower rate
of heat loss at night. This isnt the case in the temperature record.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 20, 12:55 pm, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooli...

>
> A bit of logic and physics here, more GH gass would cause a lower rate
> of heat loss at night.  This isnt the case in the temperature record.

There was a paper from 2006 which showed nights were getting warmer.

The Alexander 2006 paper claimed :
“Over 70% of the global land area sampled showed a significant
decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a significant
increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights. Some regions
experienced a more than doubling of these indices. This implies a
positive shift in the distribution of daily minimum temperature
throughout the globe. Daily maximum temperature indices showed similar
changes but with smaller magnitudes.”

So a published paper (J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.) vs a blogger on a
denialist site. Hmmm...

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:55:02 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooling-based-on-ncdc-station-record-data/#more-86438
>
>A bit of logic and physics here, more GH gass would cause a lower rate
>of heat loss at night.

Is that your opinion, or the AGW consensus?

>This isnt the case in the temperature record.

For that to be determined, the humidity
record would need to be examined separately
because it represents 95 percent of GHGs.

And GHGs clearly radiate more heat
to space than they absorb at ambient
temperatures. The air gains heat by
other means than IR in the range of
230K to 320K.

So if the average temperature is
close to the same, GHGs clearly
radiate a lot more in that temperature
range than they absorb.


And the average difference between
highs and lows does not have to be
less with more CO2, it could be more,
but is more likely to be about the same
because CO2 is such a minor trace gas.


At the moment I am cautiously thinking
that the N2 and O2 atmosphere would
have about the same average temperature
as now, but the surface would have much
greater extremes without water.

All GHGs do is reduce the extremes,
nothing else, the average temperature
is the result of a great mass of N2 and
O2 that retains any heat it gains, the
surface average temperature is what
determines then average air temperature,
and the GHGs just tempers the swings.

Adding CO2 may have different
consequences than AGW theory, or
it may have little consequence because
there is so little of it.

Adding CO2 could cause minor
cooling, but not the amount needed
to cause ice ages, not even changes
in solar insolation can have that much
of an effect, only snow cover and
cloud cover can have a major effect.

[emoneyjoe]

It is a matter of which way the wind blows
and if there are clouds.

Cloud size and location is pretty
random.

[gordo]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:55:02 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Still getting first line science from a shill blog. Do you think that
he is trying to cast doubt on science?

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:41:50 -0700, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
wrote:

AGW is not science, averaging recorded
temperatures is not science.

Clouds provide 20 time the buffer against
cold nights that GHGs do.

[Chom Noamsky]

As usual, gordo adds nothing remotely intelligent to the conversation.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 5/20/2013 1:39 PM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 20, 12:55 pm, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooli...
>>
>> A bit of logic and physics here, more GH gass would cause a lower rate
>> of heat loss at night. This isnt the case in the temperature record.
>
> There was a paper from 2006 which showed nights were getting warmer.
>
> The Alexander 2006 paper claimed :

> �Over 70% of the global land area sampled showed a significant

> decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a significant
> increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights. Some regions
> experienced a more than doubling of these indices. This implies a
> positive shift in the distribution of daily minimum temperature
> throughout the globe. Daily maximum temperature indices showed similar

> changes but with smaller magnitudes.�

>
> So a published paper (J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.) vs a blogger on a
> denialist site. Hmmm...

The paper you cited above is not looking at the same thing. What the
WUWT post was looking for is a trend in the differential between rising
and falling temperature. Cooling happens at night, if the GHE was
slowing cooling at night then temperature differential should show a
trend. Oops, no trend. It's amazing that nobody thought of doing this
before, it makes it so obvious that the GHE balances out and results in
a net wash.

[gordo]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "erschro...@gmail.com"
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is more than a denialist blog. It is a paid for shill site.

[gordo]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:19:54 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

I added that you get your science from anonymous shill blogs.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 21, 3:01 am, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:

> On 5/20/2013 1:39 PM, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 12:55 pm, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooli...
>
> >> A bit of logic and physics here, more GH gass would cause a lower rate
> >> of heat loss at night.  This isnt the case in the temperature record.
>
> > There was a paper from 2006 which showed nights were getting warmer.
>
> > The Alexander 2006 paper claimed :

> > Over 70% of the global land area sampled showed a significant
> > decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a significant
> > increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights. Some regions
> > experienced a more than doubling of these indices. This implies a
> > positive shift in the distribution of daily minimum temperature
> > throughout the globe. Daily maximum temperature indices showed similar
> > changes but with smaller magnitudes.
>

> > So a published paper (J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.) vs a blogger on a
> > denialist site.  Hmmm...
>
> The paper you cited above is not looking at the same thing.  What the
> WUWT post was looking for is a trend in the differential between rising
> and falling temperature.  Cooling happens at night, if the GHE was
> slowing cooling at night then temperature differential should show a
> trend.  Oops, no trend.  It's amazing that nobody thought of doing this
> before, it makes it so obvious that the GHE balances out and results in
> a net wash.

"Lower rates of heat loss at night" translates into "nights getting
warmer."

[emoneyjoe]

Which the study showed is not happening.

[Chom Noamsky]

But you have the relevance of a barking gnat, so your point is?

[Chom Noamsky]

Yep, that's the theory, and the analysis shows no trend in the
differential between rising/falling temperature. That means
rising/falling is shifting proportionally. In other words, there is no
evidence that increased GHGs are slowing the cooling rate.

[gordo]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:09:41 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

It is a constant reminder to you, that you get confused when you get
your science from shill blogs.Is this guest blog designed to cast
doubt on the IPCC reports, that say CO2 is the main reason for the
present warming? Take your time. A simple yes or no will do.

[Chom Noamsky]

I have a better response... back in the bozo bin for you. Say hi to
Dawlish for me.

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:23:12 -0700, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
wrote:

What warming, stupid? CO2 is a trace gas.

I look for sites that don't gaze into crystal
balls and slowly recite doom sayings from the
book of world conquest.

[gordo]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:23:12 -0700, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
wrote:

It looks like Chompsky found out that the bottom line of the shill
blog was indeed to cast doubt on the IPCC reports that say, CO2 is the
main reason for the present warming.

[matt_sykes]

On 20 May, 22:39, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

Er, rate of heat loss and night time temperature are not the same
thing.

idiot.

[matt_sykes]

On 20 May, 22:49, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:55:02 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
>

> <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooli...

>
> >A bit of logic and physics here, more GH gass would cause a lower rate
> >of heat loss at night.
>
>        Is that your opinion, or the AGW consensus?
>
> >This isnt the case in the temperature record.
>
>        For that to be determined, the humidity
> record would need to be examined separately
> because it represents 95 percent of GHGs.

I disagree. CO2 warming->more WV -> GH gas warming is the theory, so
leaving WV in the mix is important.

>
>       And GHGs clearly radiate more heat
> to space than they absorb at ambient
> temperatures.    The air gains heat by
> other means than IR in the range of
> 230K to 320K.

What other means?

>
>      So if the average temperature is
> close to the same, GHGs clearly
> radiate a lot more in that temperature
> range than they absorb.
>
>       And the average difference between
> highs and lows does not have to be
> less with more CO2, it could be more,
> but is more likely to be about the same
> because CO2 is such a minor trace gas.

Of course this is the important point.

>
>      At the moment I am cautiously thinking
> that the N2 and O2 atmosphere would
> have about the same average temperature
> as now, but the surface would have much
> greater extremes without water.

That is my view too. Increased GH gasses narrows the diurnal range,
increasing the lows alot and reducing the highs a bit. In fact a
climate scientists confirmed this to me recently.

[matt_sykes]

On 21 May, 05:41, gordo <grmerr...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:55:02 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
>

> <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooli...

>
> >A bit of logic and physics here, more GH gass would cause a lower rate
> >of heat loss at night.  This isnt the case in the temperature record.
>
> Still getting first line science from a shill blog. Do you think that
> he is trying to cast doubt on science?

Idiot.

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 03:44:35 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 20 May, 22:49, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:55:02 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
>>
>> <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooli...
>>
>> >A bit of logic and physics here, more GH gass would cause a lower rate
>> >of heat loss at night.
>>
>>        Is that your opinion, or the AGW consensus?
>>
>> >This isnt the case in the temperature record.
>>
>>        For that to be determined, the humidity
>> record would need to be examined separately
>> because it represents 95 percent of GHGs.
>
>I disagree. CO2 warming->more WV -> GH gas warming is the theory, so
>leaving WV in the mix is important.

It cannot be assumed that more CO2
causes less outward radiation to space.

More water vapor is a cooling process
three ways, evaporative cooling, lift of
latent heat to altitude, and cooling of
the surface region by colder precip.

The local humidity causes warm air
to feel warmer, but it also causes cold
air to feel colder.
But when the water changed to vapor,
it cooled the local region.

How is that strictly warming?

>>       And GHGs clearly radiate more heat
>> to space than they absorb at ambient
>> temperatures.    The air gains heat by
>> other means than IR in the range of
>> 230K to 320K.
>
>What other means?

Conduction with the surface, UV
absorption, at altitude-release of
latent heat, friction.

And the GHGs send all that
to space.

>>      So if the average temperature is
>> close to the same, GHGs clearly
>> radiate a lot more in that temperature
>> range than they absorb.
>>
>>       And the average difference between
>> highs and lows does not have to be
>> less with more CO2, it could be more,
>> but is more likely to be about the same
>> because CO2 is such a minor trace gas.
>
>Of course this is the important point.
>
>>
>>      At the moment I am cautiously thinking
>> that the N2 and O2 atmosphere would
>> have about the same average temperature
>> as now, but the surface would have much
>> greater extremes without water.
>
>That is my view too. Increased GH gasses narrows the diurnal range,
>increasing the lows alot and reducing the highs a bit. In fact a
>climate scientists confirmed this to me recently.

I suspect the role of the N2 and O2
is overlooked or not given full credit.

Water is the key, the Earth is the
right distance from the sun, and it is
water that provides a number of self
controlling temperature mechanisms.

It is possible that more or less CO2
has almost no effect on temperature
because more radiates more in addition
to absorbing more.

The humidity can be high or low and
still have quite warm or cold temperatures,
so why would more or less CO2 mean
a change in temperature?

I think the article from WUWT by
Willis today is the best thinking in a while.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 21, 4:18 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:58:44 -0700 (PDT), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

The 2006 published paper showed it was. A wwut blog claimed it was
not. Not much of a contest as to which is more credible.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 21, 5:21 pm, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:

So why didn't Crow publish this? We have a published paper in 2006,
and a blog saying something different. That's like an Uzi vs a knife
at 100 feet.

And Crow doesn't seem to have ever published anything. In fact,
there's no information showing he's any kind of a scientist. All he
seems to do is post on blogs.

Can you tell me what his qualifications are?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 21, 9:52 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:23:12 -0700, gordo <grmerr...@shaw.ca.remove>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:09:41 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On 5/21/2013 12:01 PM, gordo wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:19:54 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 5/20/2013 8:41 PM, gordo wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:55:02 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes

> >>>>> <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooli...

>
> >>>>>> A bit of logic and physics here, more GH gass would cause a lower rate
> >>>>>> of heat loss at night.  This isnt the case in the temperature record.
>
> >>>>> Still getting first line science from a shill blog. Do you think that
> >>>>> he is trying to cast doubt on science?
>
> >>>> As usual, gordo adds nothing remotely intelligent to the conversation.
>
> >>> I added that you get your science from anonymous shill blogs.
>
> >>But you have the relevance of a barking gnat, so your point is?
>
> >It is a constant reminder to you, that you get confused when you get
> >your science from shill blogs.Is this guest blog designed to cast
> >doubt on the IPCC reports, that say CO2 is the main reason for the
> >present warming? Take your time. A simple yes or no will do.
>
>        What warming, stupid?     CO2 is a trace gas.
>
>        I look for sites that don't gaze into crystal
> balls and slowly recite doom sayings from the
> book of world conquest.

You look for sites that deal with dungeons and dragons.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

If the rate of heat loss at night is less, the temp won't cool down as
much. Think about it.

[gordo]

You shouldn't ask that. When I post the lack of qualifications,it is
called smearing. How dare you smear a blogger in a shill blog who has
no qualifications.

[Chom Noamsky]

He did publish it, that's how you know about it.

> And Crow doesn't seem to have ever published anything. In fact,
> there's no information showing he's any kind of a scientist. All he
> seems to do is post on blogs.
>
> Can you tell me what his qualifications are?

What's with the credentialism? There are scientists in this world who
are total buffoons... isn't knowledge, reason and wisdom what really
counts? Sometimes a formal academic education can hinder, rather than
help a person think outside the box.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:15:20 -0700, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:

>> >> The paper you cited above is not looking at the same thing.  What
>> >> the WUWT post was looking for is a trend in the differential between
>> >> rising and falling temperature.  Cooling happens at night, if the
>> >> GHE was slowing cooling at night then temperature differential
>> >> should show a trend.  Oops, no trend.  It's amazing that nobody
>> >> thought of doing this before, it makes it so obvious that the GHE
>> >> balances out and results in a net wash.
>>
>> >"Lower rates of heat loss at night" translates into "nights getting
>> >warmer."
>>
>>        Which the study showed is not happening.
>
> The 2006 published paper showed it was. A wwut blog claimed it was not.
> Not much of a contest as to which is more credible.

Most of the warming is supposed to affect non-tropical locations at night.
This contradicts the supposition of already hot places becoming too hot
to live because the day time temperatures and the hotter regions are not
concerned.
Who has any objection for milder temperatures at night and in winter in
temperate and sub-polar regions? The only problem is that those milder
winters are not as frequent as it was supposed a decade or two ago. Our
children actually know what a cold and snowy winter is, they so it more
than once.

[emoneyjoe]

Parker is still fixated in the past, in 2006
and even 2 years ago none of the alarmists
would admit that the warming had plateaued.

The midwest is experiencing temperatures
in the 30s again this morning and tomorrow
morning with frost possible in some areas.

In four weeks it will be summer, and
June can be the hottest month here.