It's now global cooling

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Andre, Oct 31, 2008.

  1. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Granted climates change, however sun spot cycles, methane chimneys, and volcanoes are not man made.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    I assume that this is addressed at Richard Lindzen and Chillingar et al?

    Nice restricted choice fallacy. The kind of "when did you stop beating your girlfriend". Well done.

    It's remarkable how cooperative you are, Chris, to continue demonstrating the groupthink excess of global warming, nice fallacies, really.

    Jennifer is happy to answer for me:

    Now please be so kind and demonstrate in transparent way what the flaws are in the Chillingar et al paper.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828

    If you cherry-pick your evidence from isolated sources (as you do) then yes, I have no doubt you can manufacture that conclusion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    Alternately, what exactly is the evidence that or wheneven warming was caused by increase of CO2?

    Seems a stupid question, but it's neither the ice cores anymore, nor the hockeystick, nor that actual measured values for CO2 and temp.

    What is the remaining evidence?
     
  8. chriscolose Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    No, sorry. Peer-review is a first and necessary step. You wanting equal treatment of blogs and journals sounds nice to the kiddies, but that's not how it works in the real world and it shows a disrespect toward yourself and science, and others really for assuming we have the time and patience to sift through every blog and op-ed on the internet and point out errors. Since ice cores and the hockey stick and CO2/temp measurements are all standing up, we'll just have to keep waiting. Your inability to find something of real substance is revealing. Since you do not like scientific sources, for Chillingar, start
    (http)://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/chilinger_if_you_assume_that_c.php
    (http)://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-is-too-short-to-occupy-oneself_21.html

    I'm working up to 20 posts to psotl inks, I swear
     
  9. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    Come on, Chris, are the comments in the blogs of top sceptic haters peer reviewed? They clearly show that they haven't understand a thing of the message of Chillingar et al. So what they do is trying to discredit it, which is very very easy:

    That's exactly what happens here, Haven't you wondered why realclimate even after about 9-10 months still hasn't torn it to pieces?

    Anyway Chilingar et al do not challenge greenhouse effect at al. What is challenged is it's place in the different heat transport vectors: conduction, convection and radiation. The IPCC selected articles and modelling virtually neglect convection and it is assumed that the 33 degrees temperature difference between grey body and actual atmosphere is solely caused by greenhouse effect.

    However convection, especially wet (with evaporation and condensation) transports an enormous amount of latent heat into the atmosphere. When condensation takes place the heat is returned again and then the effective greenhouse radiation starts at higher altitudes. It's not too difficult to see that the higher you start radiation (as in greenhouse effect) the more radiation escapes to space and the less returns to earth.

    That's the essence of Chilingar et al. Now, if you increase the amount of greenhouse gasses, the radiation rates above and below the effective radiation altitude change in equal rate, which essentially means that there is no change in ratio of radiation ending at the earth surface and escaping into space. Moreover, the more greenhouse gasses below, the more effective the atmosphere is heated just above the surface, which simply increases the rate of convection and the transport of heat to higher levels negating that increase. The only thing that really matters is the altitude of the radiation, relative to the optical thinkness above and below.

    Really the atmosphere is a big and flawless air conditioner, having kept Earth habitable for some billion years despite all the changes.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2008
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I tried that out in my microwave, to cool the lower layers of my beer by increasing the convecton in the glass (then I was going to dump out the upper layers and have an instant cold beer from my microwave.

    Didn't work. Didn't work on the stove either, or in the broiler. Adding heat to the lower layers caused them to become hotter, every time, and continual addition of heat cause them to remain hotter.

    What am I doing wrong ?
     
  11. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
  12. chriscolose Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    Andre, if you or these fraudets Chillingar et al. think climatologists ignore convection, then pick up a basic textbook in atmospheric sciences. You spend all your time looking for things addressing "the scam" and how to talk fancy to other people, yet you don't understand the science. If there was no convection, then the surface would be extremely hot and everyone is well aware of this.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I don't think a competent theorist like Reynolds can be blamed for the notion that heat driven convection will prevent the lower atmosphere from heating up - - [size=-2] and driving the convection [/size]- - -

    Much less the notion that transporting large amounts of heat and water to the normal weather levels will have no significant effect on the global climate.
     
  14. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    What exactly makes you groupthink that Chilingar et al are fraudets, can't you for a single moment outgrow your own pathetic ad honimens and sympthom:

    Exactly, so what causes the warming of the atmosphere so that the lower atmosphere is 33 degrees above Earth black body temperature?

    And arent'we missing the essential point here. If it is convection, that is the main factor for heating the atmosphere, then greenhouse gasses couldn't be the main factor for heating the atmosphere, could it?.

    Not so sure about that. These are ALL the quotes of the relevant chapters from the 4th assessment report concerning convection:

    Chap-2 Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing


    See also fig 2 FAQ 2.1. pp 136, no convection mentioned.

    Chap 3

    Chap 4: Convection not mentioned[/QUOTE]

    So chap 3 acknowledges convection as a predominant process of something, even energy mentioned, however chap2 does not seem to take convection into account as a heating mechanism of the atmosphere like Chilingar et al 2008. One would at least expect it to be a "forcing" factor in chap2.
     
  15. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    Better realize that his number has nothing to do with his competence.

    But we can guestimate the significance of latent heat convection for instance when calculating energy required for increasing evaporation with increasing IR back radiation for the assumed water vapor feedback

    As the absolute/relative humidity is course directly affecting water vapor feedback, let's see what is required to get those increased values. For ballpark figures, from slide 6 here let's assume average annual evaporation of a meter per year. That's 2.74 liters (2740 g) per m2 per day or 114 g per hour is 0.032 gram per second. It takes 2500 joule to evaporate one gram of water, so for 0.032 gram that's 79 joule per second per square meter or 79 W/m2

    Now to keep relative humidity constant when increasing the ambient temperature of 15 C to 16 C, suppose a dewpoint of about 9 degrees we see here a decrease of 67% to 63%. Obviously we also have to raise the dewpoint one degree to get back to 67% Now the absolute humidity calculated here goes from 9 gram/m3 at a dewpoint of 9 degrees to 9.6 gram/m3 at a dewpoint of 10 degrees, an increase of 7%. To sustain an increase of 7% more water vapor in the atmospere it seems logical that the rate of evaporation also has to increase by 7% as well, which in turn requires 7% more energy. Hence I'd need 7% of 79 W/m2 or 5.5 W/m2 extra to maintain constant relative humidity.

    This would give some idea as to the amount of energy that is removed from the Earth surface with wet convection when we increase the greenhouse effect.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Or yours.
    So is the lower atmosphere heating up, driving convection and sending large amounts of heat and water to the weather levels (where it will have enormous effects on top of the heating below)

    or is it not heating up much, therefore not driving lots of convection for transporting the greenhouse trapped energy anywhere (so what's happening to it) ?

    I mean your argument is fairly ludicrous, as far as you have laid it out. Did you check out the crackpot index so courteously linked for your enlightenment ?

    Last summer I had the pleasure of watching some lower atmosphere heating drive some convection over a prairie near my home - the result was a rapid and fairly spectacular change in the weather. Just saying.
     
  17. Diode-Man Awesome User Title Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    Stop all nuclear facilities from producing electricity. They are accelerating the rate of atomic decay by millions of years.

    Uranium actually produces heat naturally, and tons of heat when it is destroyed in a nuclear reactor.

    We have no choice but to burn coal/oil and use wind harvesters and tide energy.
     
  18. amark317 game developer-in-training Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    and if any of the Global warming junkies like Al Gore hear about this and actually stop their fear-mongering, then he will become a great hero and take all the credit for a cycle that has been going on since the birth of the earth.
     
  19. chriscolose Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    Andre, the greenhouse effect is exclusively responsible for the 33 C. Convection has nothing to do with the TOA energy balance, it is as term in the surface energy balance and helps remove the gradient between the surface and atmosphere. But actually greenhouse warming relies on the decrease of atmospheric temperature with height, which is due to the adiabatic profile established by convection. When we leave the troposphere and enter the andre-chilingarsphere, convection only removes heat from the surface and a no-atmosphere case would be even below a 255 K baseline.

    As for your rant about water vapor feedback, I have already corrected this exact same post like a year ago in your mistaken assumption that evaporation scales evenly with Clausius-Clapeyron. You get 5 more points for #5
    (http)://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
     
  20. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    http://www.dailytech.com/Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Pace on Record/article13385.htm

    Rapid Rebound Brings Ice Back to Levels from the 1980s.

    "An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979.

    The actual amount of ice area varies seasonally from about 16 to 23 million square kilometers. However, the mean anomaly-- defined as the difference between the current area and the seasonally-adjusted average-- changes much slower, and generally varies by only 2-3 million square kilometers.

    That anomaly had been negative, indicating ice loss, for most of the current decade and reached a historic low in 2007. The current value is again zero, indicating an amount of ice exactly equal to the global average from 1979-2000.

    Bill Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Center at the University of Illinois, says the rapid increase is "no big deal". He says that, while the Arctic has certainly been colder in recent months, the long-term decrease is still ongoing. Chapman, who predicts that sea ice will soon stop growing, sees nothing in the recent data to contradict predictions of global warming.

    Others aren't quite so sure. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, says he sees some "very odd" things occurring in recent years. Michaels, who is also a Senior Fellow with the Cato Institute, tells DailyTech that, while the behavior of the Arctic seems to agree with climate models predictions, the Southern Hemisphere can't be explained by current theory. "The models predict a warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?" Michaels adds that large areas of the Southern Pacific are showing cooling trends, an occurrence not anticipated by any current climate model.

    On average, ice covers roughly 7% of the ocean surface of the planet. Sea ice is floating and therefore doesn't affect sea level like the ice anchored on bedrock in Antarctica or Greenland. However, research has indicated that the Antarctic continent -- which is on a long-term cooling trend -- has also been gaining ice in recent years."
     
  21. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    The one thing about being "not so sure", that the climate-change deniers appear to blithely walk straight past every time, is that it doesn't just mean "it isn't going to happen, or not for centuries", it also means "we aren't sure what's happening, and it might not be centuries, it might be decades".

    What is certain is that the planet's climate is only 'stable' to some extent, there is a lot of evidence that climate has not been 'stable', in the past. Why should we doubt that it will destabilise again, at some future point, when we're changing things now?

    Or should we blithely step over the fact we've poured billions of tonnes of 'unnatural' stuff into it too?
     
  22. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The global climate is only stable over short periods of time. The longer trend indicates a slow slippery slide into the next ice age

    Whats important are the ratios. CO2 is not somehow 'unnatural' and has only hovered around 0.03% of the total atmosphere for at least 600,000 years.
     
  23. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Except for the blip, over the last ~8000 years, with a growing 'bump' since the last ~200 or so?

    CO2 is a natural component of the atmosphere - we wouldn't have a climate without a smallish percentage to trap solar radiation.

    CO2 itself is not, as you say, "somehow unnatural", as a gas - O2 is not unnatural either (but is toxic). We know about that.

    The unnatural aspect is that some organisms can release large amounts of it (that would be: us guys), and change the "natural" concentration. These animals can be completely unaware that the gases and other substances they're contributing have any effect.

    Then the planet makes them aware of it by wiping most of them out.

    Is the onset of the next glacial cycle avoidable somehow? Can we alter the atmosphere and the oceans, and not expect any consequences? Would two melted polar regions be a "better outcome" or would expanding ice-sheets and lower sea-levels be the go? Maybe we'll have to wait and see.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2008

Share This Page