Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
BBC: Unexplained 'standstill' in 'global warming' -- since 1998!
3 views
Skip to first unread message
BurfordTJustice
May 21, 2013, 5:42:27 AM5/21/13
to
Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead
to lower temperature rises in the short-term.
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the
Earth's atmosphere.
Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted
warming in the coming decades.
But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.
"Start Quote
The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before"
End Quote Dr Alexander Otto University of Oxford
The slowdown in the expected rate of global warming has been studied for
several years now. Earlier this year, the UK Met Office lowered their
five-year temperature forecast.
But this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any slowdown is
likely to affect temperatures in both the short-term and long-term.
An international team of researchers looked at how the last decade would
impact long-term, equilibrium climate sensitivity and the shorter term
climate response.
Transient nature
Climate sensitivity looks to see what would happen if we doubled
concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and let the Earth's oceans and ice
sheets respond to it over several thousand years.
Transient climate response is much shorter term calculation again based on a
doubling of CO2.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the
short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F).
But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last
decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C.
The report suggests that warming in the near term will be less than
forecast
"The hottest of the models in the medium-term, they are actually looking
less likely or inconsistent with the data from the last decade alone," said
Dr Alexander Otto from the University of Oxford.
"The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before."
The authors calculate that over the coming decades global average
temperatures will warm about 20% more slowly than expected.
But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is
consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity
was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.
Ocean storage
This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises,
produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.
"It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.
"But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity
to be lower but it isn't."
The researchers say the difference between the lower short-term estimate and
the more consistent long-term picture can be explained by the fact that the
heat from the last decade has been absorbed into and is being stored by the
world's oceans.
Not everyone agrees with this perspective.
Prof Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales, says the
conclusion about the oceans needs to be taken with a grain of salt for now.
"There is other research out there pointing out that this storage may be
part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, either due to El Nino
or the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and therefore may not
imply what the authors are suggesting," he said.
The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of
aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.
"We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend
is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before
about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.
Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the
slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
to lower temperature rises in the short-term.
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the
Earth's atmosphere.
Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted
warming in the coming decades.
But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.
"Start Quote
The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before"
End Quote Dr Alexander Otto University of Oxford
The slowdown in the expected rate of global warming has been studied for
several years now. Earlier this year, the UK Met Office lowered their
five-year temperature forecast.
But this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any slowdown is
likely to affect temperatures in both the short-term and long-term.
An international team of researchers looked at how the last decade would
impact long-term, equilibrium climate sensitivity and the shorter term
climate response.
Transient nature
Climate sensitivity looks to see what would happen if we doubled
concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and let the Earth's oceans and ice
sheets respond to it over several thousand years.
Transient climate response is much shorter term calculation again based on a
doubling of CO2.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the
short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F).
But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last
decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C.
The report suggests that warming in the near term will be less than
forecast
"The hottest of the models in the medium-term, they are actually looking
less likely or inconsistent with the data from the last decade alone," said
Dr Alexander Otto from the University of Oxford.
"The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before."
The authors calculate that over the coming decades global average
temperatures will warm about 20% more slowly than expected.
But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is
consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity
was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.
Ocean storage
This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises,
produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.
"It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.
"But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity
to be lower but it isn't."
The researchers say the difference between the lower short-term estimate and
the more consistent long-term picture can be explained by the fact that the
heat from the last decade has been absorbed into and is being stored by the
world's oceans.
Not everyone agrees with this perspective.
Prof Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales, says the
conclusion about the oceans needs to be taken with a grain of salt for now.
"There is other research out there pointing out that this storage may be
part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, either due to El Nino
or the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and therefore may not
imply what the authors are suggesting," he said.
The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of
aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.
"We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend
is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before
about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.
Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the
slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
Message has been deleted
BurfordTJustice
May 21, 2013, 11:23:02 AM5/21/13
to
"Skeptic" wrote in message news:6jcovu....@news.alt.net...
"BurfordTJustice" <bur...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
[...]
>Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the
>slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
>
>"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
Or in other words, the planet continues to warm up,
>slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
>
>"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
albeit at a slightly slower rate than expected.
I get the impression that you simply seize on headlines
that seem to confirm your denialist beliefs but have no
idea what these articles actually say. Climate modeling
is a very difficult field.
--
Have you tried the purple? It tastes like grape.
Barney Frank
May 21, 2013, 12:50:50 PM5/21/13
to
From the Far left BBC story"
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the
Earth's atmosphere.
means....No Warming...Lefties like to deny the whole NO Warming Part...
"Skeptic" wrote in message news:6jcovu....@news.alt.net...
"BurfordTJustice" <bur...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
[...]
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the
Earth's atmosphere.
"Skeptic" wrote in message news:6jcovu....@news.alt.net...
"BurfordTJustice" <bur...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
[...]
>Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the
>slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
>
>"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
>slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
>
>"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
Message has been deleted
Barney Frank
May 21, 2013, 3:41:33 PM5/21/13
to
You are a seriously handicapped leftie..probably beyond saving.
Study the difference between weather and the fraud you promote..
From the far left up to their spleen in Global warming belief BBC"
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the
Earth's atmosphere.
>means....No Warming...Lefties like to deny the whole NO Warming Part...
NO WARMING since 1998 You can deny it all you want..damn inconvenient fact
for you isn't it?
"Skeptic" wrote in message news:6jd5so....@news.alt.net...
"Barney Frank" <bar...@housegov.us> wrote:
[...]
across most of the country last spring?
Global warming isn't a political issue, it's solid science.
1. CO2 levels are at their highest levels since the Paleocene.
2. CO2 has a higher thermal resistance than our mostly N2/O2 atmosphere.
3. More CO2 is the same as putting an extra blanket on your bed -
it takes a lot of self-delusion to convince yourself you're colder
under that extra blanket.
The politics comes in with what we as a species are going to do
about it. You seem to be in favor of imagining the CO2 levels
magically don't matter.
Where do you think the exhaust from your car goes? And don't
tell me it's all absorbed by plants, the Amazon rainforest is
disappearing so fast that deforestation alone would be causing
problems with CO2 levels.
Study the difference between weather and the fraud you promote..
From the far left up to their spleen in Global warming belief BBC"
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the
Earth's atmosphere.
>means....No Warming...Lefties like to deny the whole NO Warming Part...
for you isn't it?
"Skeptic" wrote in message news:6jd5so....@news.alt.net...
"Barney Frank" <bar...@housegov.us> wrote:
[...]
>Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of
>the
>Earth's atmosphere.
>
>means....No Warming...Lefties like to deny the whole NO Warming Part...
Seriously? You don't remember the record high US temperatures
>the
>Earth's atmosphere.
>
>means....No Warming...Lefties like to deny the whole NO Warming Part...
across most of the country last spring?
Global warming isn't a political issue, it's solid science.
1. CO2 levels are at their highest levels since the Paleocene.
2. CO2 has a higher thermal resistance than our mostly N2/O2 atmosphere.
3. More CO2 is the same as putting an extra blanket on your bed -
it takes a lot of self-delusion to convince yourself you're colder
under that extra blanket.
The politics comes in with what we as a species are going to do
about it. You seem to be in favor of imagining the CO2 levels
magically don't matter.
Where do you think the exhaust from your car goes? And don't
tell me it's all absorbed by plants, the Amazon rainforest is
disappearing so fast that deforestation alone would be causing
problems with CO2 levels.
Message has been deleted
Barney Frank
May 21, 2013, 6:21:04 PM5/21/13
to
Typical liberal..changing the subject.
Try harder to understand the inconvenient fact:
on a cold winter's night?
Try harder to understand the inconvenient fact:
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the
Earth's atmosphere.
means....No Warming...Lefties like to deny the whole NO Warming Part...
You are a seriously handicapped leftie..probably beyond saving.
Study the difference between weather and the fraud you promote..
From the far left up to their spleen in Global warming belief BBC"
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the
Earth's atmosphere.
>means....No Warming...Lefties like to deny the whole NO Warming Part...
NO WARMING since 1998 You can deny it all you want..damn inconvenient fact
for you isn't it?
"Skeptic" wrote in message news:6jd978....@news.alt.net...
Earth's atmosphere.
means....No Warming...Lefties like to deny the whole NO Warming Part...
You are a seriously handicapped leftie..probably beyond saving.
Study the difference between weather and the fraud you promote..
From the far left up to their spleen in Global warming belief BBC"
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the
Earth's atmosphere.
>means....No Warming...Lefties like to deny the whole NO Warming Part...
NO WARMING since 1998 You can deny it all you want..damn inconvenient fact
for you isn't it?
"Barney Frank" <bar...@housegov.us> wrote:
>Study the difference between weather and the fraud you promote..
Do you get warmer when you put an extra blanket on your bed
>Study the difference between weather and the fraud you promote..
on a cold winter's night?
Message has been deleted
Barney Frank
May 22, 2013, 7:16:31 AM5/22/13
to
You is beyond saving...continue to believe in the fraud and send your money
to Al.
Do you have an electric car?
Are you off the Grid and use solar panels/windmills?
How do you dispose of your old batteries?
Have you gotten rid of all fossil fuel using items in your family?
Have you gotten rid of all plastic made from oil products?
Have you stopped using all item manufactured by fossil fuel using methods?
"Skeptic" wrote in message news:6jdi6c....@news.alt.net...
"Barney Frank" <bar...@housegov.us> wrote:
>Typical liberal..changing the subject.
Hardly. I was checking to see if you can make basic
engineering observations. That has nothing to do with
politics.
Do you get warmer when you put an extra blanket on
your bed on a cold winter's night?
This isn't a trick question. If you can't answer
it, there's no point in continuing because you
lack the ability to discuss this subject.
>Try harder to understand the inconvenient fact:
>Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of
>the
>Earth's atmosphere.
And that's a lie. The 9 warmest years on record
have occured in this century, which is after 1998.
Even FOXNews reported this last year when we had
record springtime temperatures.
I don't understand why you keep repeating that lie.
There are several datasets online you can use, but
they all show a warming trend, not a standstill or
cooling.
to Al.
Do you have an electric car?
Are you off the Grid and use solar panels/windmills?
How do you dispose of your old batteries?
Have you gotten rid of all fossil fuel using items in your family?
Have you gotten rid of all plastic made from oil products?
Have you stopped using all item manufactured by fossil fuel using methods?
"Skeptic" wrote in message news:6jdi6c....@news.alt.net...
"Barney Frank" <bar...@housegov.us> wrote:
>Typical liberal..changing the subject.
Hardly. I was checking to see if you can make basic
engineering observations. That has nothing to do with
politics.
Do you get warmer when you put an extra blanket on
your bed on a cold winter's night?
it, there's no point in continuing because you
lack the ability to discuss this subject.
>Try harder to understand the inconvenient fact:
>Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of
>the
>Earth's atmosphere.
have occured in this century, which is after 1998.
Even FOXNews reported this last year when we had
record springtime temperatures.
I don't understand why you keep repeating that lie.
There are several datasets online you can use, but
they all show a warming trend, not a standstill or
cooling.
Message has been deleted
FromTheRafters
May 22, 2013, 11:31:22 AM5/22/13
to
Skeptic brought next idea :
> question.
>
> One last time - do you get warmer when you put an extra
warmer?"
>
> A rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere is like putting
> an extra blanket on your bed - you get warmer. This is
> elementary school thermodynamics - not magic.
The CO2 enhances whatever trend there is. It gets sequestered as it
gets cooler, and released as it gets warmer - contributing to the
temperature swing in either direction (over and above that which is
'normal' fluctuations due to orbit or tilt.
The problem is that we are releasing previously sequestered CO2 as we
burn fossil fuel and we assume that the entire temperature swing is
*caused* by our meddling rather than just being enhanced by it. Last
years temperature or even the year before tells us *nothing* about the
climate.
> "Barney Frank" <bar...@housegov.us> wrote:
>
>> You is beyond saving...continue to believe in the fraud and send your money
>> to Al.
>
> I put my faith in thermodynamics, not politicians.
>
>> You is beyond saving...continue to believe in the fraud and send your money
>> to Al.
>
>
>> Do you have an electric car?
>> Are you off the Grid and use solar panels/windmills?
>> How do you dispose of your old batteries?
>> Have you gotten rid of all fossil fuel using items in your family?
>> Have you gotten rid of all plastic made from oil products?
>> Have you stopped using all item manufactured by fossil fuel using methods?
>
> I'll answer your questions after you answer my single
>> Do you have an electric car?
>> Are you off the Grid and use solar panels/windmills?
>> How do you dispose of your old batteries?
>> Have you gotten rid of all fossil fuel using items in your family?
>> Have you gotten rid of all plastic made from oil products?
>> Have you stopped using all item manufactured by fossil fuel using methods?
>
> question.
>
> One last time - do you get warmer when you put an extra
> blanket on your bed on a cold winter's night?
A better question might be "Do you grow more blankets as the temp gets
warmer?"
>
> A rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere is like putting
> an extra blanket on your bed - you get warmer. This is
> elementary school thermodynamics - not magic.
The CO2 enhances whatever trend there is. It gets sequestered as it
gets cooler, and released as it gets warmer - contributing to the
temperature swing in either direction (over and above that which is
'normal' fluctuations due to orbit or tilt.
The problem is that we are releasing previously sequestered CO2 as we
burn fossil fuel and we assume that the entire temperature swing is
*caused* by our meddling rather than just being enhanced by it. Last
years temperature or even the year before tells us *nothing* about the
climate.
Barney Frank
May 22, 2013, 12:14:06 PM5/22/13
to
Just as thought..you won me 500 quid...
Now run along I am done with you and your FRAUD.
You are a lying polluter trying to be Gore Like...LOL
"Skeptic" wrote in message news:6jfb8d....@news.alt.net...
Now run along I am done with you and your FRAUD.
You are a lying polluter trying to be Gore Like...LOL
"Skeptic" wrote in message news:6jfb8d....@news.alt.net...
"Barney Frank" <bar...@housegov.us> wrote:
>You is beyond saving...continue to believe in the fraud and send your money
>to Al.
>You is beyond saving...continue to believe in the fraud and send your money
>to Al.
I put my faith in thermodynamics, not politicians.
>Do you have an electric car?
>Are you off the Grid and use solar panels/windmills?
>How do you dispose of your old batteries?
>Have you gotten rid of all fossil fuel using items in your family?
>Have you gotten rid of all plastic made from oil products?
>Have you stopped using all item manufactured by fossil fuel using methods?
>Are you off the Grid and use solar panels/windmills?
>How do you dispose of your old batteries?
>Have you gotten rid of all fossil fuel using items in your family?
>Have you gotten rid of all plastic made from oil products?
>Have you stopped using all item manufactured by fossil fuel using methods?
I'll answer your questions after you answer my single
question.
One last time - do you get warmer when you put an extra
question.
blanket on your bed on a cold winter's night?
Jenn
May 22, 2013, 12:19:17 PM5/22/13
to
Barney Frank wrote:
> I'll answer your questions after you answer my single
> question.
>
> One last time - do you get warmer when you put an extra
> blanket on your bed on a cold winter's night?
How cold is it and how thick is the blanket?
> I'll answer your questions after you answer my single
> question.
>
> One last time - do you get warmer when you put an extra
> blanket on your bed on a cold winter's night?
> A rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere is like putting
> an extra blanket on your bed - you get warmer. This is
> elementary school thermodynamics - not magic.
therefore, any global temperature change may not be even noticable, let
alone likely.
It's not so 'elementary'.
--
Jenn
Message has been deleted
Ferd Berfle
May 22, 2013, 12:47:21 PM5/22/13
to
"BurfordTJustice" <bur...@hubdub.mo> wrote in message
news:kng39a$i5r$1...@dont-email.me...
Fundamentalists?
FromTheRafters
May 22, 2013, 1:29:39 PM5/22/13
to
Skeptic used his keyboard to write :
> FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
> to do with atmospheric CO2 levels (at least to first order.)
I said nothing about the Sun's power, nor anything about what order of
magnitude CO2 had over/under what orbit and tilt contributed.
Can you post any scientific evidence that CO2 levels drive the
temperature as opposed to the temperature driving the CO2 levels? My
statement was about your analogy to more blankets making you warmer -
as if the blankets *caused* the warming. The latest things I have read
on the subject has taken the stance that CO2 amplifies the existing
temperature changes which are in turn driven by astronomical variations
and not by atmospheric content.
I'm not weighing in on the whole global warming debate, just
disagreeing with what seemed to me was an overly simplified (and likley
wrong) mental model of a CO2 'blanket' making you warmer.
>
> I'll settle for denialists acknowledging basic CO2 measurements.
Temperature and CO2 levels seem to track, but as yet I haven't seen
where the conclusion is that CO2 levels 'drive' the warming - as your
model seems to suggest - is warranted.
> atmosphere by studying the Paleocene. This has nothing to
> do with the sources and sinks of CO2.
>
> I'll be happy to discuss the nuances of climate modeling
> and unanswered questions of the current climate changes,
> but the denialists at least have to acknowledge 17th century
> thermodynamics first. All you'll get out of academic
> discussion at this point is more FUD as they seize on
> "yes, but" answers.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that adding CO2 artificially to the
atmosphere during a warming trend is *not* a good idea. I'm unconvinced
that CO2 drives the temperature up as is usually concluded in a simple
blanket model when reviewing geologic records.
> FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> A better question might be "Do you grow more blankets as the temp gets
>> warmer?"
>
> I'll settle for denialists acknowledging basic thermodynamics.
>> warmer?"
>
>
>>> A rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere is like putting
>>> an extra blanket on your bed - you get warmer. This is
>>> elementary school thermodynamics - not magic.
>>
>> The CO2 enhances whatever trend there is. It gets sequestered as it
>> gets cooler, and released as it gets warmer - contributing to the
>> temperature swing in either direction (over and above that which is
>> 'normal' fluctuations due to orbit or tilt.
>
> ￜquￜ? The earth's orbit and the sun's power level have little
>>> A rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere is like putting
>>> an extra blanket on your bed - you get warmer. This is
>>> elementary school thermodynamics - not magic.
>>
>> The CO2 enhances whatever trend there is. It gets sequestered as it
>> gets cooler, and released as it gets warmer - contributing to the
>> temperature swing in either direction (over and above that which is
>> 'normal' fluctuations due to orbit or tilt.
>
> to do with atmospheric CO2 levels (at least to first order.)
I said nothing about the Sun's power, nor anything about what order of
magnitude CO2 had over/under what orbit and tilt contributed.
Can you post any scientific evidence that CO2 levels drive the
temperature as opposed to the temperature driving the CO2 levels? My
statement was about your analogy to more blankets making you warmer -
as if the blankets *caused* the warming. The latest things I have read
on the subject has taken the stance that CO2 amplifies the existing
temperature changes which are in turn driven by astronomical variations
and not by atmospheric content.
I'm not weighing in on the whole global warming debate, just
disagreeing with what seemed to me was an overly simplified (and likley
wrong) mental model of a CO2 'blanket' making you warmer.
>
> I'll settle for denialists acknowledging basic CO2 measurements.
Temperature and CO2 levels seem to track, but as yet I haven't seen
where the conclusion is that CO2 levels 'drive' the warming - as your
model seems to suggest - is warranted.
>
>> The problem is that we are releasing previously sequestered CO2 as we
>> burn fossil fuel and we assume that the entire temperature swing is
>> *caused* by our meddling rather than just being enhanced by it. Last
>> years temperature or even the year before tells us *nothing* about the
>> climate.
>
> We already know the steady state climate for a 400 ppm CO2
>> The problem is that we are releasing previously sequestered CO2 as we
>> burn fossil fuel and we assume that the entire temperature swing is
>> *caused* by our meddling rather than just being enhanced by it. Last
>> years temperature or even the year before tells us *nothing* about the
>> climate.
>
> atmosphere by studying the Paleocene. This has nothing to
> do with the sources and sinks of CO2.
>
> I'll be happy to discuss the nuances of climate modeling
> and unanswered questions of the current climate changes,
> but the denialists at least have to acknowledge 17th century
> thermodynamics first. All you'll get out of academic
> discussion at this point is more FUD as they seize on
> "yes, but" answers.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that adding CO2 artificially to the
atmosphere during a warming trend is *not* a good idea. I'm unconvinced
that CO2 drives the temperature up as is usually concluded in a simple
blanket model when reviewing geologic records.
BurfordTJustice
May 22, 2013, 1:47:24 PM5/22/13
to
"Ferd Berfle" <fa...@farkle.com> wrote in message
news:knisj6$upc$1...@dont-email.me...
They Belong to the Church of the Goracle.
Joe
May 22, 2013, 5:22:39 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:14:06 -0400
"Barney Frank" <bar...@housegov.us> wrote:
>
>
> A rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere is like putting
> an extra blanket on your bed - you get warmer. This is
> elementary school thermodynamics - not magic.
>
What do blankets have to do with anything?
"Barney Frank" <bar...@housegov.us> wrote:
>
>
> A rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere is like putting
> an extra blanket on your bed - you get warmer. This is
> elementary school thermodynamics - not magic.
>
Hint: the heat leaving Earth does not do so by conduction, nor even by
convection.
--
Joe
FromTheRafters
May 22, 2013, 6:03:55 PM5/22/13
to
It happens that Joe formulated :
Another point to ponder is that too simple a model doesn't work the
other way either. Such a model for the albedo effect of the cooling
Earth would involve covering yourself with shaved ice on a hot day -
while in reality it isn't about the ice but about the color of Earth's
surface and the radiated heat from the Sun - in the case of the blanket
it really isn't about the blanket at all, it's the interference with
radiated heat trying to leave - and the heat capacity of the
atmosphere. If I'm not mistaken, the Earth is cooling - as it has been
for quite a while, it's the atmosphere we have to be careful with.
other way either. Such a model for the albedo effect of the cooling
Earth would involve covering yourself with shaved ice on a hot day -
while in reality it isn't about the ice but about the color of Earth's
surface and the radiated heat from the Sun - in the case of the blanket
it really isn't about the blanket at all, it's the interference with
radiated heat trying to leave - and the heat capacity of the
atmosphere. If I'm not mistaken, the Earth is cooling - as it has been
for quite a while, it's the atmosphere we have to be careful with.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
FromTheRafters
May 22, 2013, 7:00:19 PM5/22/13
to
After serious thinking Skeptic wrote :
> Climate modeling is extremely complex and not very easy
> to explain to someone who doesn't have a grasp on basic
> thermodynamics. As soon as you start introducing additional
> variables, you risk going off on a tangent.
Their eyes all glaze over and they start just nodding their heads so as
to appear to be following along.
>
> As far as cooling goes - yes, there was a time when it
> was thought that we were heading for an ice age. What
> we were actually seeing has been termed "global dimming"
> by some - you should be able to find the PBS NOVA episode
> at PBS.org or Youtube.
>
> The point I'm still trying to make here is that CO2 levels
> aren't in dispute. The thermodynamic properties of CO2 in
> the atmosphere isn't in dispute. The weather station observations
> aren't in dispute either. This can't be manipulated by politicians.
IMO, facts shouldn't ever be in dispute, only conclusions, conjectures
scientific wild-assed guesses, and deductions (and their ilk) should
be. Many of these turn out to be wrong when one checks one's
assumptions.
> to explain to someone who doesn't have a grasp on basic
> thermodynamics. As soon as you start introducing additional
> variables, you risk going off on a tangent.
Their eyes all glaze over and they start just nodding their heads so as
to appear to be following along.
>
> As far as cooling goes - yes, there was a time when it
> was thought that we were heading for an ice age. What
> we were actually seeing has been termed "global dimming"
> by some - you should be able to find the PBS NOVA episode
> at PBS.org or Youtube.
>
> The point I'm still trying to make here is that CO2 levels
> aren't in dispute. The thermodynamic properties of CO2 in
> the atmosphere isn't in dispute. The weather station observations
> aren't in dispute either. This can't be manipulated by politicians.
IMO, facts shouldn't ever be in dispute, only conclusions, conjectures
scientific wild-assed guesses, and deductions (and their ilk) should
be. Many of these turn out to be wrong when one checks one's
assumptions.
Ferd Berfle
May 23, 2013, 10:09:00 AM5/23/13
to
news:knj040$kbv$1...@dont-email.me...
LOL!
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/al_gore_prophet1.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/08/its-official-al-gore-is-a-prophet/
It's official: Al Gore is a prophet
Jeff Young interviews Maggie Fox, President and CEO of Al Gore's latest
scam, the Climate Reality Project:
FOX: I think the notion of Vice President Gore as a divisive figure is a bit
of a hoax, just like the people who are denying climate change. It's a
pre-frame, it's a fabrication that suits those who want to keep the status
quo. So if you have a prophet, if you have someone who has woken up to a
particular challenge in the world and that person speaks, if that disrupts
things, who is going to be and what are the voices going to be that say that
person doesn't have credibility? Those voices that don't want that change .
There are so many more voices clamoring to hear what he has to say that his
right to speak and need to speak is more than made clear virtually every
day.
YOUNG: Did you just refer to him as a prophet?
FOX: I think he is a prophet on climate change. I think he woke up to this
issue in his earliest years, expected as other people learned about it that
they would also wake up to its significance . His presumption as a young man
was that once you heard the information the world would shift and start
getting its act together, and that hasn't happened.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/al_gore_prophet1.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/08/its-official-al-gore-is-a-prophet/
It's official: Al Gore is a prophet
Jeff Young interviews Maggie Fox, President and CEO of Al Gore's latest
scam, the Climate Reality Project:
FOX: I think the notion of Vice President Gore as a divisive figure is a bit
of a hoax, just like the people who are denying climate change. It's a
pre-frame, it's a fabrication that suits those who want to keep the status
quo. So if you have a prophet, if you have someone who has woken up to a
particular challenge in the world and that person speaks, if that disrupts
things, who is going to be and what are the voices going to be that say that
person doesn't have credibility? Those voices that don't want that change .
There are so many more voices clamoring to hear what he has to say that his
right to speak and need to speak is more than made clear virtually every
day.
YOUNG: Did you just refer to him as a prophet?
FOX: I think he is a prophet on climate change. I think he woke up to this
issue in his earliest years, expected as other people learned about it that
they would also wake up to its significance . His presumption as a young man
was that once you heard the information the world would shift and start
getting its act together, and that hasn't happened.
BurfordTJustice
May 23, 2013, 12:03:05 PM5/23/13
to
news:knl7m7$9tl$1...@dont-email.me...
--
I suppose now he will marry a 6 year old and fuck her when she turns 9.
Maybe he will explode before long.
I suppose now he will marry a 6 year old and fuck her when she turns 9.
Maybe he will explode before long.
Ferd Berfle
May 24, 2013, 11:09:43 AM5/24/13
to
<Skeptic> wrote in message news:6jg6n1....@news.alt.net...
> Climate modeling is extremely complex and not very easy
> to explain to someone who doesn't have a grasp on basic
> thermodynamics. As soon as you start introducing additional
> variables, you risk going off on a tangent.
>
> to explain to someone who doesn't have a grasp on basic
> thermodynamics. As soon as you start introducing additional
> variables, you risk going off on a tangent.
>
> As far as cooling goes - yes, there was a time when it
> was thought that we were heading for an ice age. What
> we were actually seeing has been termed "global dimming"
> by some - you should be able to find the PBS NOVA episode
> at PBS.org or Youtube.
>
> The point I'm still trying to make here is that CO2 levels
> aren't in dispute. The thermodynamic properties of CO2 in
> was thought that we were heading for an ice age. What
> we were actually seeing has been termed "global dimming"
> by some - you should be able to find the PBS NOVA episode
> at PBS.org or Youtube.
>
> The point I'm still trying to make here is that CO2 levels
> the atmosphere isn't in dispute.
Bull shit
>The weather station observations
> aren't in dispute either.
>This can't be manipulated by politicians.
claim that CO2 forcing is of significance. (Except maybe theiwiki sources)
"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon
dioxide."
-- Dr. Reid Bryson
BurfordTJustice
May 24, 2013, 1:27:20 PM5/24/13
to
0 new messages