i can come up with graphs too
Climate Greenhouse Warming Equation Wrong
by VM44 56 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
villabolo
WTWizard:
"Now, CO 2 seems to result from a warming trend, not the other way around. And there are plausible explanations: The ocean soaks it up. If it warms up, some of that gas will bubble out. This is like shaking a Coke that has been in the refrigerator and one that has been in a room-temperature room, and suddenly opening both. The cold one makes less of a mess than the warm one--releasing less CO 2 in the process."
As Besty said, you bring up the same issues and disregard the responses already made. If you're not willing to acknowledge those responses we might as well cut and paste our own answers from other threads. Since you don't seem to care further responses should be done for the benefit of others.
However the statement above is a new one to me, at least I haven't noticed it before. It's really funny to imagine that the CO 2 is bubbling out of the oceans like seltzer water. Wouldn't it have been observed doing so by thousands of ships out at sea?
What you don't realize, Wizard, is that carbonated drinks cannot be an analogy to the ocean because the drinks are super saturated and in an unstable state. Once open they revert to a stable state after giving up most of its CO 2 . The quantity, percentage wise, of CO 2 in a seltzer drink is much greater than the ocean has by far through technological contrivance. So warm or cold the ocean is not going to bubble at all.
What will you come up with next? Burping fish?
villabolo
-
besty
BTS - Last time you attempted to explain this diverging graph you relied on a National Geographic link which you obviously hadn't read :-)
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/186270/2/Climate-Change-nee-Global-Warming-Strkes-Again
Maybe now is a good time to revisit the question I posed to you at that time which at this point remains unanswered:
Do you share his (Abdussamatov) views on the denial of CO2 as playing the major role in earth's climate?
In an abrupt change of heart you apparently now believe it is faulty positioning of US weather stations...the basic premise being that if a weather station is poorly sited (near an artificial heat source or reflective surface - for example a parking lot or AC unit) then this will skew the overall data making the planet appear hotter than it actually is.
Needless to say the pesky facts just don't agree. Anthony Watt's surfacestations.org volunteer project - which you are relying on - doesn't address this question directly. However, the NOAA have published Talking Points related to concerns about whether the U.S. temperature record is reliable.
The NOAA used the site ratings by surfacestations.org to construct two national time series. One was the full data set, using all weather stations. The other used only Class 1 or Class 2 weather stations, classified as good or best.
The graph below shows the 70 most highly rated weather stations (blue) and all 1218 stations red:
Figure 2: annual temperature anomaly (thin lines) and smoothed data (thick lines) for all U.S. weather stations (red) and Class 1/Class 2 weather stations (blue).
The two data sets cover different areas so some differences might be expected. The top rating stations only covered 43% of the country with some states not included (eg - New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina).
Nevertheless, the two data sets show practically identical trends.
The work of surfacestations.org is useful in clarifying one point - microsite influence has imparted little to no warming bias in the U.S. temperature record.
Before you jump to the next denier myth to explain the divergence perhaps you would be so kind as to answer my question on the work of Abdussamatov which you seem to have abandoned rather carelessly.
-
bohm
The problem is the author get fundamental thermodynamics wrong, thats why noone will puplish his paper. M. applies Kirchhoff law to a system where it does not apply, and get unphysical results. Others have puplished links that elaborate on these points.
And why the hell is it written in word? it makes my eyes bleed!
-
BurnTheShips
The top 10 feet of the ocean contain more heat energy than the entire atmosphere.
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3420
Physicists at the University of Rochester have combed through data from satellites and ocean buoys and found evidence that in the last 50 years, the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans has changed direction three times.
These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth’s climate, say the researchers. These anomalies include changes in normal storm intensities, unusual land temperatures, and a large drop in salmon populations along the western United States.
The physicists also say these changes in ocean heat-flow direction should be taken into account when predicting global climate because the oceans represent 90 percent of the total heat in the earth’s climate system.
The study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of Physics Letters A, differs from most previous studies in two ways, the researchers say. First, the physicists look at the overall heat content of the Earth’s climate system, measuring the net balance of radiation from both the sun and Earth. And second, it analyzes more completely the data sets the researchers believe are of the highest quality, and not those that are less robust.
“These shifts happened relatively abruptly,” says David Douglass, professor of physics at the University of Rochester, and co-author of the paper. “One, for example, happened between 1976 and 1977, right when a number of other climate-related phenomenona were happening, such as significant changes in U. S. precipitation.”
Douglass says the last oceanic shift occurred about 10 years ago, and that the oceans are currently emitting slightly more radiation than they are receiving.
The members of the team, which includes Robert Knox, emeritus professor of physics at the University, believe these heat-flux shifts had previously gone unnoticed because no one had analyzed the data as thoroughly as the Rochester team has.
The team believes that the oceans may change how much they absorb and radiate depending on factors such as shifts in ocean currents that might change how the deep water and surface waters exchange heat. In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring “warming in the pipeline.” Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
“An interesting aspect of this research is that no reference to the surface temperature itself is needed,” says Knox. “The heat content data we used, gathered by oceanographers, was gleaned from temperature measurements at various ocean depths up to 750 meters.” The team also found that the radiative imbalance was sufficiently small that it was necessary to consider the effect of geothermal heating. Knox believes this is the first time this additional source of heat has been accounted for in such a model.
The team notes that it’s impossible to predict when another shift might occur, but they suspect future shifts might be similar to the three observed. Both Douglass and Knox are continuing to analyze various climate-related data to find any new information or correlations that may have so far gone unnoticed.
-
villabolo
WTWizard, let's take that trip to Mars one more time.
Villabolo said about three days ago:
"Mars has its own dynamics, very different than Earth's. It has much larger variations than Earth in its rotation because it lacks a large heavy moon like ours to serve as a gravitational anchor. This instability causes many temperature extremes. It also has an ultrathin atmosphere and ice caps made of frozen CO2 both of which are very volatile and react to the slightest change. There simply is no comparison.
Also, the very claim that Mars is warming up is very suspicious to me because I remember that being used as an argument against Global Warming since the late 1970s and early 1980s. How much warmer has it supposedly gotten since the deniers, 30 years ago came up with this."
-
frankiespeakin
VM44,
Just thought I would post a utube of
Miskolczi`s New Greenhouse Law
-
besty
As I suspected BTS you have now posted a 3rd and completely different explanation for the diverging graph.
Please answer my question on the first suggestion you posted, otherwise I have to conclude you are not interested in actually discussing this issue.
-
slimboyfat
I am not fully convinced about climate change. The "deniers" certainly got the better in this particular exchange (the full debate is over an hour on youtube):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDncJGjvHGw&feature=PlayList&p=F60C6C685021CA27&index=0
Even if climate change is true as commonly presented by the establishement, I think the resource/energy crisis is more of a big deal for those of us alive at the moment.
I won't get in besty's way though, he's a man on a mission.
-
bohm
Frankie, the problem is that at the core of M.'s explanation is the formula Eu = Su/2. M does not explain how he arrive at that result - is it based on first principles, is it a guess, what is it? Its just there, and thats why he cant get pass peer review since that requires you got to explain what the hell you are doing.
I dont understand why people attempt to support the paper by posting graphs, the problem is that there are equations and definitions of laws that are *really* odd.
