43 replies to this topic

[CAD wedge_NC]

skierinvermont, on 23 September 2009 - 07:32 PM, said:

I've posted my summary of the current scientific literature on this runaway melt concept before, you should read it for a change Ytterbium and stop posting these troll threads.

When will these "Global Warming" folks wake up? AGW articles like this one will eventually stop being published due to the fact that no-one will read them. The general public have seen most of these graphs and more folks are getting wise to the fact that Hansen's charts have led them down the path of deceit.

[Steve Albers]

Cape Coral FL, on 23 September 2009 - 06:58 PM, said:

Yeah.........And this was just coincidentally released at the start of the UN Summit. Nothing political about it, all science.

I've been talking about much of this acceleration for several months in the forum here. Feel free to review posts #8-10.

http://www.easternus...0

The variety of studies of measurements from the Ice-Sat and GRACE satellites (plus other techniques) are painting an interesting and somewhat compelling picture of an accelerated thinning/melting of the polar ice sheets.

[+SN]

Steve Albers, on 26 September 2009 - 01:28 PM, said:

I've been talking about much of this acceleration for several months in the forum here. Feel free to review posts #8-10.

http://www.easternus...0

The variety of studies of measurements from the Ice-Sat and GRACE satellites (plus other techniques) are painting an interesting and somewhat compelling picture of an accelerated thinning/melting of the polar ice sheets.

I'm fine with Greenland warming up, that means NEG NAO for us.

[Steve Albers]

This study suggests that long term, even moderate warming will cause 6-9 meters of sea level rise.

http://www.nature.co...ature08686.html

Article here:

http://www.princeton...tion=topstories

[cheetah440]

thankfully the warming isn't moderate, isn't even "slight", I'd say "faint" and as far as I can tell it has waned over the past decade. We have now been seeing cold, anomalous cold all over the globe over the last few years. Snow in places that don't usually get it. OH yeah, and this delicious irony from Europe:

http://www.theglobea...article1406797/

Death and destruction from what? Global warming? Nope, cold and snow.

[Steve Albers]

As we've been discussing, the decade of the 2000s is still significantly warmer than the 1990s.

[Steve Albers]

Here's an update on the accelerated ice sheet loss in Greenland and Antarctica measured by the GRACE satellites.

http://www.agu.org/p...9GL040222.shtml

[WeatherRusty]

cheetah440, on 21 December 2009 - 10:19 PM, said:

thankfully the warming isn't moderate, isn't even "slight", I'd say "faint" and as far as I can tell it has waned over the past decade. We have now been seeing cold, anomalous cold all over the globe over the last few years. Snow in places that don't usually get it. OH yeah, and this delicious irony from Europe:

http://www.theglobea...article1406797/

Death and destruction from what? Global warming? Nope, cold and snow.

I am totally dumbfounded that someone here can make statements like this. The current decade is easily the warmest of the entire instrumental record. To suggest that cold and snow wherever they occur somehow refutes the global average temperature as measured by both surface and satellite and meaning to imply that the world is somehow in a cold period when it is anything but cold is what? Disingenuous? I'm sorry, but you sound ridiculous.

[Feb678]

WeatherRusty, on 01 January 2010 - 02:50 PM, said:

I am totally dumbfounded that someone here can make statements like this. The current decade is easily the warmest of the entire instrumental record. To suggest that cold and snow wherever they occur somehow refutes the global average temperature as measured by both surface and satellite and meaning to imply that the world is somehow in a cold period when it is anything but cold is what? Disingenuous? I'm sorry, but you sound ridiculous.

Actually...the satellite record tells a story of cooling that has now commenced with the recent shift of the PDO. Read the email controversy and you will find many problems with other sources of data...like excluding 40% of stations in Siberia....like urbanization near measuring station....like not being able to correlate tree ring proxy data with current measurements...etc.

Time will prove the so called skeptic right. In fact...I believe the day is approaching where there will be a critical mass of scientific mind think whereby those who continue to adhere to the flawed theory will be looked upon as looney tunes....like UFO believers or ESP tests.

Mother nature will provide the final word.

[WeatherRusty]

Feb678, on 04 January 2010 - 03:40 PM, said:

Actually...the satellite record tells a story of cooling that has now commenced with the recent shift of the PDO. Read the email controversy and you will find many problems with other sources of data...like excluding 40% of stations in Siberia....like urbanization near measuring station....like not being able to correlate tree ring proxy data with current measurements...etc.

Time will prove the so called skeptic right. In fact...I believe the day is approaching where there will be a critical mass of scientific mind think whereby those who continue to adhere to the flawed theory will be looked upon as looney tunes....like UFO believers or ESP tests.

Mother nature will provide the final word.

Talk about drinking the KOOL AID....well at least you got one thing right amongst half truths, urban legend and misconception...I hesitate to call them lies, I am a friendly sort.

[Feb678]

WeatherRusty, on 04 January 2010 - 04:57 PM, said:

Talk about drinking the KOOL AID....well at least you got one thing right amongst half truths, urban legend and misconception...I hesitate to call them lies, I am a friendly sort.

Lets hope we both live long enough to see the truth revealed. I have a friend like you and he says even if Iam right...that the world is now cooling.....we are still in trouible because when it warms up again...watch out. But when I ask him why none of the models predict the cooling and doesnt that mean some very significant variables are not built into the holy models...he does not have an answer. Do you have an answer?

You are like some of the folks here on the weather models. The GFS shows a blizzard 10 days away. THen the reality sets in and there is no blizzard coming but they keep looking at the models to see it. Same thing with the AGW models. They did not predict cooling. Some major drivers in the climate are simply not modeled properly. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas...yes. But even the models do not use CO2 directly. They use water vapor forcing and it appears they got it wrong.

Want to know something else? The globe is not a greenhouse. There is free convection of heat...unlike in a real greenhouse. And once the extra heat in "trapped" in the stratosphere....where the temps are colder....the 2nd law of thermodynamics would need to be violated for that heat to ever be transferred back to the surface where it is warmer. Not to mention the signature of warming in the stratosphere is missing.

[WeatherRusty]

Feb678, on 05 January 2010 - 07:30 AM, said:

Lets hope we both live long enough to see the truth revealed. I have a friend like you and he says even if Iam right...that the world is now cooling.....we are still in trouible because when it warms up again...watch out. But when I ask him why none of the models predict the cooling and doesnt that mean some very significant variables are not built into the holy models...he does not have an answer. Do you have an answer?

You are like some of the folks here on the weather models. The GFS shows a blizzard 10 days away. THen the reality sets in and there is no blizzard coming but they keep looking at the models to see it. Same thing with the AGW models. They did not predict cooling. Some major drivers in the climate are simply not modeled properly. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas...yes. But even the models do not use CO2 directly. They use water vapor forcing and it appears they got it wrong.

Want to know something else? The globe is not a greenhouse. There is free convection of heat...unlike in a real greenhouse. And once the extra heat in "trapped" in the stratosphere....where the temps are colder....the 2nd law of thermodynamics would need to be violated for that heat to ever be transferred back to the surface where it is warmer. Not to mention the signature of warming in the stratosphere is missing.

I must dispute that the Globe is cooling given the fact that all of the past 10 years represent the warmest 10 in the instrumental database with the single exception of 1998.
The past decade"s anomaly is about 0.2C above that of the 1990's.

Models don't predict predict cooling on the short term because they are not looking for short term variation. They are linear models designed to indicate the long term trend based upon various emissions scenarios.

To your final paragraph, heat is not transferred from high above as you believe greenhouse theory to proclaim. That in fact would violate the 2nd law if it were how it was supposed to work.......The atmospheric greenhouse effect slows the loss of radiant energy (IR radiation) from the surface to space. A surface that cools more slowly ends up being a warmer surface. This takes place below the tropopause, not the stratosphere. The effective temperature of Earth is 255K degrees, yet the surface is 33K warmer than that due to the greenhouse effect. The 255K temperature exists on average at about 16,000' within the troposphere. As viewed from space the temperature of the Earth is 255K, below that level the atmosphere is opaque to IR because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and it grows progressive warmer down to the surface due to compression. Heat is not transfered from a colder area to a warmer area, radiation travels in all directions including downward but don't confuse radiation with "heat" or kinetic energy.

[Feb678]

WeatherRusty, on 05 January 2010 - 08:29 AM, said:

I must dispute that the Globe is cooling given the fact that all of the past 10 years represent the warmest 10 in the instrumental database with the single exception of 1998.
The past decade"s anomaly is about 0.2C above that of the 1990's.

Models don't predict predict cooling on the short term because they are not looking for short term variation. They are linear models designed to indicate the long term trend based upon various emissions scenarios.

To your final paragraph, heat is not transferred from high above as you believe greenhouse theory to proclaim. That in fact would violate the 2nd law if it were how it was supposed to work.......The atmospheric greenhouse effect slows the loss of radiant energy (IR radiation) from the surface to space. A surface that cools more slowly ends up being a warmer surface. This takes place below the tropopause, not the stratosphere. The effective temperature of Earth is 255K degrees, yet the surface is 33K warmer than that due to the greenhouse effect. The 255K temperature exists on average at about 16,000' within the troposphere. As viewed from space the temperature of the Earth is 255K, below that level the atmosphere is opaque to IR because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and it grows progressive warmer down to the surface due to compression. Heat is not transfered from a colder area to a warmer area, radiation travels in all directions including downward but don't confuse radiation with "heat" or kinetic energy.

OK...lets at least come to an agreement on the current measurements MR. Rusty. From where are you getting your facts that the world is not cooling lately?

Secondly..although I admit it is a argument in semantics...then you do admit the term "Greenhouse" is a misnomer. Greenhouses work through the prevention of free convection of heat. Radiant energy does travel in all directions yes...but the atmosphere does not have a glass ceiling. There is free convection through all layers. So heat that is trapped in the upper levels would be free to convect to the even cooler upper layers above that. Ultimately, any iradiate energy transfer will cause air temps to increase and then the atmosphere will convect that heat to the highest levels where it should disipate into space.

As for linear long term trends...is 10 years not enough time to establish a trend? I have read in multiple sources that there has not been any statisically meaningful warming in 10 years and in fact the globe is now cooling.

And from what I have read the stratosphere above the tropics is not warming as predicted by the models.

Also, you have not addressed my basic sniff test question. Do you agree that the oceans degass CO2 when they warm? IF so, what natural mechanisms have been in place to prevent naturla run-away warming...as vast quantities of CO2 are relaeased from the oceans during a natural warming cycle what natural mechanisms would prevent a continuous positive feedback loop of more and more warming? There must be something in place and since we have not experienced this run-away warming are not these mechanisms more significant than the contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere? And are these natural negative feedback variables part of the AGW models? If not...then the models are insufficiently designed.

But get back to the first point. Were the 1930's not the warmest decade on record? Is the earth still warming now or not?

[WeatherRusty]

Feb678, on 05 January 2010 - 10:08 AM, said:

OK...lets at least come to an agreement on the current measurements MR. Rusty. From where are you getting your facts that the world is not cooling lately?

Secondly..although I admit it is a argument in semantics...then you do admit the term "Greenhouse" is a misnomer. Greenhouses work through the prevention of free convection of heat. Radiant energy does travel in all directions yes...but the atmosphere does not have a glass ceiling. There is free convection through all layers. So heat that is trapped in the upper levels would be free to convect to the even cooler upper layers above that. Ultimately, any iradiate energy transfer will cause air temps to increase and then the atmosphere will convect that heat to the highest levels where it should disipate into space.

As for linear long term trends...is 10 years not enough time to establish a trend? I have read in multiple sources that there has not been any statisically meaningful warming in 10 years and in fact the globe is now cooling.

And from what I have read the stratosphere above the tropics is not warming as predicted by the models.

Also, you have not addressed my basic sniff test question. Do you agree that the oceans degass CO2 when they warm? IF so, what natural mechanisms have been in place to prevent naturla run-away warming...as vast quantities of CO2 are relaeased from the oceans during a natural warming cycle what natural mechanisms would prevent a continuous positive feedback loop of more and more warming? There must be something in place and since we have not experienced this run-away warming are not these mechanisms more significant than the contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere? And are these natural negative feedback variables part of the AGW models? If not...then the models are insufficiently designed.

But get back to the first point. Were the 1930's not the warmest decade on record? Is the earth still warming now or not?

The 1930's were the warmest in the CONUS. The 2000's warmest globally. The deep oceans are accumulating heat. The warmest SST's ever directly measured occurred just this past summer.

Where is the Heat?

For each additional unit of CO2 entering the atmosphere the radiative forcing is reduced such that for each doubling 3.7W/m^2 of forcing ensues. Thus 280ppm to 560, 560 to 1120, 1120 to 1240, 1240 to 2480ppm etc. all give the same radiative forcing. 3.7W/m^2 times Planck Response (0.3C/Watt) = 1.2C of temperature response per doubling. A whole lot more CO2 must enter the atmosphere in order to raise temperature to the same degree with each increment. CO2 feedback alone, or water vapor feedback alone, can not enter an endless positive feedback loop since each subsequent equal increment produces less warming. An additional source of heat such as from the Sun would be required to push the system "over the edge". That and CO2 is not the only factor governing climate change.

Climate Drivers

The atmosphere does have a barrier to convection, it is the tropopause, a temperature inversion between the troposphere and stratosphere. This is the reason radiative forcing is measured from the tropopause, most all energy transfer is radiative from out of the troposphere where temperature is increasing. The stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming, a signature of greenhouse warming. The tropical "hot spot" you allude to should be evident in the upper troposphere, not the stratosphere.

[Lake Effect King]

WeatherRusty, on 05 January 2010 - 09:48 PM, said:

The 1930's were the warmest in the CONUS. The 2000's warmest globally. The deep oceans are accumulating heat. The warmest SST's ever directly measured occurred just this past summer.

Where is the Heat?

For each additional unit of CO2 entering the atmosphere the radiative forcing is reduced such that for each doubling 3.7W/m^2 of forcing ensues. Thus 280ppm to 560, 560 to 1120, 1120 to 1240, 1240 to 2480ppm etc. all give the same radiative forcing. 3.7W/m^2 times Planck Response (0.3C/Watt) = 1.2C of temperature response per doubling. A whole lot more CO2 must enter the atmosphere in order to raise temperature to the same degree with each increment. CO2 feedback alone, or water vapor feedback alone, can not enter an endless positive feedback loop since each subsequent equal increment produces less warming. An additional source of heat such as from the Sun would be required to push the system "over the edge". That and CO2 is not the only factor governing climate change.

Climate Drivers

The atmosphere does have a barrier to convection, it is the tropopause, a temperature inversion between the troposphere and stratosphere. This is the reason radiative forcing is measured from the tropopause, most all energy transfer is radiative from out of the troposphere where temperature is increasing. The stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming, a signature of greenhouse warming. The tropical "hot spot" you allude to should be evident in the upper troposphere, not the stratosphere.

Then what with the claims of "accelerated warming"??....just a white lie to snap us dumb people into compliance??

Tell you what....give us skeptics another 10-20 years before insane global legislation that is only going to instill more political shannanigans (unless you trust all leaders involved), and we'll promise to trade our global footprint with any of the prominent doomsdayers out there....seriously....name anyone of the big AGW warn-ers, and I'll trade them my footprint for theirs....until then, I'll choose lead my life in an optimistic way for both my fellow man and respect our environment in ways far and above what "they" proport to....and they can fly all around the planet, have big homes and I won't say a peep....but know that THEY can have alot of those things, because they have folks (like yourself) that have decided that enough science is there to push their cause....whether it be through good science or not.

[Steve Albers]

Global warming is accelerated on a century long time scale (as is sea level rise). It is also accelerating on a decadal scale in terms of ice sheet melt.

I will agree that CO2 and global warming is only one area of environmental concern. It could become dominant over time though, based on actions taken in the near future.

[Heidi the Horrible]

Lake Effect King, on 23 September 2009 - 10:24 PM, said:

"Accelerated warming"?

Nice Hansen graph...it's better than mine !! Same conclusion, though.

[WeatherRusty]

Heidi the Horrible, on 11 January 2010 - 12:17 AM, said:

Nice Hansen graph...it's better than mine !! Same conclusion, though.

Accelerated effects of a world accumulating heat.

Misplaced Skepticism

[Steve Albers]

Let's see if we can get this thread more back on track. Here's some visualization of ice melt in Greenland the past 7 years or so, based largely on GRACE data. There are couple of different versions if you select within the YouTube icons, including Wahr (2010), and Luthcke et al (2009). There is some increase in the center of Greenland that is outweighed by more melting on the edges.

http://www.youtube.c...&hl=en_US&fs=1

[Steve Albers]

The NOAA Arctic Report Card suggests lots of melting in Greenland this year:

http://www.arctic.no.../greenland.html