Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

devoish (98.76)

Cool Time Lapse

Recs

4

July 23, 2011 – Comments (33)

According to new data from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, there were 2706 new record high temperatures set in June versus 251 new record low temperatures.

That's a ratio of nearly 11:1, when the expected ratio over time should be about 1:1. On a yearly basis over the past decade the ratio has been about 2:1, with data showing that part of the issue is that nights aren't cooling as much as they used to.

From the 1950s to 1980s the ratio fluctuated between being slightly above and slightly below 1:1, but since the 80s it began increasing. Under a business-as-usual climate change scenario, we could hit 20:1 record highs to record lows by 2050 and even 50:1 by 2100. Should we successfully reduce emissions enough, by 2050 we may be able to constrain that ratio to 8:1.

Note from me; That would be new record high temperatures, hotter than todays record setting temperatures.

Best wishes,

Steven

 

 

 

33 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 23, 2011 at 9:17 PM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

I'm confused.

Did you mean record lows?

 

 

Report this comment
#2) On July 23, 2011 at 9:27 PM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

 

Report this comment
#3) On July 23, 2011 at 9:46 PM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

Chris!

June set 2706 record high temperatures as compared to 251 record lows.

Whether you like it, or not.

Best wishes,

Steven

 

Report this comment
#4) On July 23, 2011 at 10:05 PM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

devoish June is one month and the planet is about 5 billion years old.

For the last time weather is not climate.

Best wishes,

Chris 

Report this comment
#5) On July 23, 2011 at 10:17 PM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

I love how treehugger or wherever you got your quote from extrapolated June out for the next 89 years.

That's pure unadulterated science for ya. 

Report this comment
#6) On July 23, 2011 at 11:00 PM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

Chris!

Are you sure you wanted to tell us all in print that Treehugger extrapolated one months weather out 89 years?

Because people can read for themselves that the third paragraph of the post talks about 1:1 ratios from 1950 -1980 and how that has changed and become a twenty year trend on the increase at present time. People will rightly start questioning you when you are this consistently unable to read.

And your comment about "weather is not climate" kind off opens the door for me to agree with you that Joe Bastardi in your first video is a "weatherman not a climatologist" and not an expert I would go to on climate. We need to find agreement more often. Mr Bastardi is a great guy for a five day forecast I am sure, but I don't watch his forecasts.

In light of this years and lasts extreme weather I should also thank you for taking the time to post a 2006 video of John Stossel taking the position that that the vast majority of climate scientists were wrong about their predictions of coming extreme weather. It is a good reminder of the arguments being offered at the time and rational thinkers might consider the evidence of todays extreme weather and decide that now there is very real reason to worry about CO2 induced cimate change. I am hopefull you noticed that he spends the first 4 minutes of his video telling us that thousands of climate scientists are warning us of CO2 induced extreme weather even as he takes the side of the two who doubted it would come to pass. If you did not spot that, I am happy to help you take notice.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#7) On July 23, 2011 at 11:39 PM, ETFsRule (99.89) wrote:

I don't understand the argument that Chris is trying to put forward. His first video tries to argue that temperatures are decreasing. His second video argues that temperatures are increasing, but that we shouldn't worry about it.

I don't see how someone could present both of these videos as a defense of any particular position.

Report this comment
#8) On July 24, 2011 at 12:17 AM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

Ha! It was a treehugger article! How did I guess? 

Mr Bastardi is just requoting what climatologists are confirming. Global temperatures have dropped over the last decade. Of course they are blaming that on man too! 

I'll let Richard Lindzen tell you about climatologists...

devoish, are you trying to paint a picture that the 2 out of 3 scientists in the room with him were the only ones against Al Gore's made up weather science that netted him $100 million dollars and a nobel peace prize?

I can think of at least 31,000.

But that's because of things like this...

and this...

and this...

Looks like he wants to be the first carbon billionare. 

If you want to follow the inventor of the internet, more power to you, but don't drag others down to that level with you. 

Report this comment
#9) On July 24, 2011 at 12:19 AM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

ETF's they have been decreasing in the last decade, but increasing since the ice age. Nice try though.

Report this comment
#10) On July 24, 2011 at 12:45 AM, ETFsRule (99.89) wrote:

Nice try? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

Now, why do you believe that temperatures are the best indicator of whether or not global warming is occuring? It seems to me that the melting of the global ice caps (in both hemispheres) is a much more meaningful statistic. If you disagree with this idea I'll be happy to explain it.

Report this comment
#11) On July 24, 2011 at 1:06 AM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

Hmmm....

That is a tough one.....

Why would global temperatures be the best indicator of whether it's getting hotter or colder?

Well other than having to factor in all the ocean currents, salinity of the ocean, magnetic field effects on cosmic rays and holes in the ozone, glaciers could be an indicator. But if that were the case, then antartic records would break the hockey stick because they were growing up until 2006.

Then again according to climatetologists, global temperatures were dropping when they started shrinking so they might not be that accurate after all. 

Report this comment
#12) On July 24, 2011 at 1:16 AM, ETFsRule (99.89) wrote:

In the end, it doesn't particularly matter if Al Gore made a few stupid comments, or if he stands to make money from various investments. Nor does it really matter that the Heartland Institute (which you have cited here) has recieved funding from ExxonMobil. There is plenty of finger-pointing to go around.

Anyway, leaving all the political stuff aside, the best way to approach the issue is to use common sense.

So, from a very basic, fundamental level, everyone should try to agree on this: what is the best way to determine whether or not the Earth is warming? As I've said earlier, the melting of the ice caps seems to be the most accurate indicator - and I'll be happy to explain this if it needs clarification.

Now, if we can agree on that, the next question is this: what is the best way to determine whether or not the Earth's ice caps are melting?

Should we only look at one pole of the Earth (the Northern Hemisphere or the Southern Hemisphere)? Many people have used this approach, but to me it doesn't make much sense. I think it would be much more accurate to look at the changes in the amount of ice on the entire planet.

To sum up: we should not look only at highly-volatile temperature data, which is a very poor indicator of the amount of heat that has been transferred to the Earth.

Nor should we selectively look at one hemisphere or the other, or just look at only one side of the Antarctic (as Newt Gingrich was apparently trying to do).

Wouldn't it be best to simply look at the changes in the total amount of ice on the Earth?

Report this comment
#13) On July 24, 2011 at 1:44 AM, ETFsRule (99.89) wrote:

Chris: Your response is kind of hard to follow.

My belief is that "global ice extent" (the total amount of ice on the Earth) is the best way to determine whether or not the Earth is warming.

Think of the Earth as a cup of water with some ice in it. This is pretty accurate because most of the Earth's surface area is water, and of course it has a lot of ice in it.

Now, if we really were trapping more energy inside the Earth's atmosphere, what would we expect to happen?

For one thing, we know that the air temperature would probably not change very quickly. Air has a very low thermal conductivity (this is why double-pane windows are effective). So, a change in the air temperature would be one of the last things we should look for.

Now, think about that cup of ice water. When you start to heat it, the temperature will not change! Instead, the vast majority of the energy (heat) will go towards melting the ice cubes... you will only see significant temperature changes after all the ice has been melted. The diagram here illustrates this... the temperature of the system remains constant whenever a phase change is occuring.

Of course, the Earth's oceans are fairly complex, so if they are heated you will see all sorts of new ocean currents, temperature gradients, etc. But after a while, all that extra energy will inevitably to go towards melting the polar ice caps.

Report this comment
#14) On July 24, 2011 at 1:45 AM, ETFsRule (99.89) wrote:

There's an extra "to" in that post... it's late...

Report this comment
#15) On July 24, 2011 at 7:59 AM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

Chris,

Calling Gore "smug" in big yellow letters is not anything but calling Gore smug in big yellow letters. If it means a lot to you, by all means, go with it.

Its interesting about that 31000 scientist thing. That has been put out there so often that when I typed 31000 into the search box google suggested I wanted scientist as the second word. When 31000 scientists get to together to say something, I agree we should listen. especially if they are all climatologists speaking about climate. In fact if that was actually 31000 climatologists signing a petition disputing the 2000 climatologists that worked on the IPCC climate report everyone but an ideologue would have to take notice. I know those of us who believe global warming is real and manmade took that petition seriously enough to ask what that 31000 number meant beyond just thinking "that seems like alot".

We learned the petition cam from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. We learned that the OISM's standards of what was a scientist was pretty inclusive, including food scientists and electrical engineers.

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php 

“Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.” The fields that are considered “appropriate” by the OISM are as follows:

Atmosphere, Earth, and Environment fields: atmospheric science, climatology, meteorology, astronomy, astrophysics, earth science, geochemistry, geology, geophysics, geoscience, hydrology, environmental engineering, environmental science, forestry, oceanography Computers and Math: computer science, mathematics, statistics Physics and Aerospace: physics, nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering Chemistry: chemistry, chemical engineering Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: biochemistry, biophysics, biology, ecology, entomology, zoology, animal science, agricultural science, agricultural engineering, plant science, food science Medicine: medical science, medicine General Engineering and General Science: engineering, electrical engineering, metallurgy, general science

Based on the OISM's definition of a scientist the petition, which includes the signatures of over 5000 mechanical and electrical engineers, represents .3% of all the "scientists" in the USA which is good context to begin with.

Skeptical Science offers us some more information on the survey: http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-oism-petition-project.html

However, as mentioned above, it’s entirely reasonable to ask whether a veterinarian or forestry manager or electrical engineer should qualify as a scientist. If we remove all the engineers, medical professionals, computer scientists, and mathematicians, then the 31,478 “scientists” turn into 13,245 actual scientists, as opposed to scientists according to the OISM’s expansive definition. Of course, not all of them are working in science, but since some medical professionals and statisticians do work in science, it’s still a reasonable quick estimate.

However, it’s not reasonable to expect that all of those actual scientists are working in climate sciences. Certainly the 39 climatologists, but after that, it gets much murkier. Most geologists don’t work as climate scientists, although some certainly do. Most meteorologists do weather forecasting, but understanding the weather is radically different than understanding climate. So we can’t be sure beyond the 39 climatologists, although we can reasonably assume that the number is far less than the 13,245 actual scientists claimed by the OISM.

13,245 scientists is only 0.1% of the scientists graduated in the U.S. since the 1970-71 school year.

We can, however, compare the number of atmospheric scientists, climatologists, ocean scientists, and meteorologists who signed this petition to the number of members of the various professional organizations. For example, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) has over 55,000 members, of which over 7,200 claim that atmospheric sciences is their primary field. The OISM claims 152 atmospheric scientists. Compared to the atmospheric scientist membership in the AGU, the OISM signatories are only 2.1%, and this estimate is high given the fact that the AGU does not claim all atmospheric scientists as members.

Of course, theirs is not the only survey of scientists that has been done.

A more recent survey of earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". 97.5% of climatologists who were actively publishing papers on climate change responded yes.(Doran 2009). What is most interesting about this study was that as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

Interestingly, both surveys seem to agree that less than 3% of scientists disagree with the understanding that humans are causing global warming. Rather than say " only 2.5% of scientists disagree with global warming theory, we are expected to believe that 31000 scientists and engineers is alot. And while that may be a very good sales pitch, it is not very good information.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#16) On July 24, 2011 at 8:01 AM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

I like clean air. Some coal plants reduce output of Carbon by 70% and from what I understand that gov wants 90% reduction. What are the Unintended consequences of this? Plants need carbon to survive. We need plants to survive. Question. When this data was coming in where was Magnetic North at this time. Question. How do the growing cities affect this. What I mean is that concrete and asphalt all warm the air by retaining heat. As cities get bigger more heat. AC's also pump warm air out so should we get rid of them also. Get rid of roads made of asphalt and replace it with something that does not retain heat? Same with sidewalks and plazas made with Concrete? There are spots in the Ocean that are filled with plastic. Get rid of these and return the Ocean Currents to what they used to be. Maybe this is a root cause of the problem. Why are we so hot this summer. We had a Polar Shift. Magnetic north went into Siberia. This shift was about 30 degrees. Changed the Weather Patterns into a La Nino from a La Nina. Also made airports change their run ways. You know the change was bad enough to change runways for pilots so they can fly.  So Question. Can we do anything about the Polar Shift that happened and the way it changed weather?

Report this comment
#17) On July 24, 2011 at 2:06 PM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

First ETF's...

 As I've said earlier, the melting of the ice caps seems to be the most accurate indicator - and I'll be happy to explain this if it needs clarification.

Now, if we can agree on that, the next question is this: what is the best way to determine whether or not the Earth's ice caps are melting? 

We can agree on that if you can account for the ocean currents, salinity of the ocean, magnetic field effects on cosmic rays and holes in the ozone. All of these things can effect melting of the glaciers reguardless of temperature. (Along with about a dozen other things that I can think of if you are interested). Also the Earth has an atmosphere and you have to take into account wheter that cup of water is in the freezer or in the oven.

If the ice caps do seem to be the most accurate indicator to you how do you take those factors that I've mentioned into account and how do you explain the antarctic glaciers growing until 2006 in your model?

devoish,

Would you prefer green letters to yellow letters? I noticed that you ignored Al Gore's means, motive, and opportunity. I also noticed that you also ignored the pressure by politicians mentioned by the scientists in Stossel's video and in the video by Lindzen. In the survey that you mentioned, was the answer most given. "Yes, Al Gore pays my paycheck!" 

So even when you discard so many as unqualified and then say the only people that are qualified are on the government payroll you still can't say that the science is settled as Mr Gore does. You'll still have climatologists like Lindzen fighting you every step of the way.

That rampant abuses of science by climategate, the monetary motivation by Al Gore and his partners in crime, and the persecution of those that disagree in the same manner that religon persecuted Galileo and Brand leave a hole in your science big enough to drive a truck through.

Nice try trying to imply that the scientists that signed the petition were the only ones that disagreed, but  we know that that kind of math that Al Gore makes up on the fly doesn't work with people not on the payroll.

lquadland10,

Most of what you described is the urban heat island effect and that is a very real addition to global temperatures. Although there are some liberals that are aware of the problem and propose genocide as an answer, mainstream liberals prefer something that they can tax enough to make the political base rich. It's easy for them to line up a graph of temperatures and carbon and show a correlation, but what they don't tell you is that oceans off-gas carbon when it's hot and the carbon graph lags the temperature graph by 100 years.  

So if you were to give me that same survey question that devoish mentioned was given to the climatologists.

"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 

My answer would be the same as the climatologists. It would be yes as well. There are too freakin many of us and we like to cover everything in concrete and asphalt and we prefer not to roast in the summer time and freeze in the winter time and our furnaces and air conditioners release heat into the atmoshepre along with our transportation, livestock, farm equipment and everything else that we use to stay alive.

If devoish believes that Carbon is the problem, then it appears that Sulfur is the answer according to those climatoligists that he follows. We could either Sulfurize our own Carbon or buy more stuff from China.

In yesterday's news, June and July were hot. The world is officially coming to an end. Send your checks to solve the problem care of Al Gore inventor of the internet.

 

 

Report this comment
#18) On July 24, 2011 at 2:59 PM, ETFsRule (99.89) wrote:

"We can agree on that if you can account for the ocean currents"

Like I said earlier, it doesn't really matter if the ocean swirls around a bit. Over any significant period of time the heat will be transferred to the coldest object in proximity to the oceans - the ice caps.

"salinity of the ocean"

That's an interesting thing to say. Are you just trying to be disagreeable, or do you honestly believe that there has been an increase in ocean salinity to the extent that it could start to melt the ice caps?

"magnetic field effects on cosmic rays"

Can you elaborate on this? It sounds like you've been studying some very complex science.

"and holes in the ozone."

This would just cause more energy to enter the Earth's atmosphere. I don't see how this goes against anything that I've said. When additional energy is transferred to the Earth, the vast majority of it will be absorbed by the oceans and the ice caps - not the air. 

"Also the Earth has an atmosphere and you have to take into account wheter that cup of water is in the freezer or in the oven."

I already touched on this, but the Earth's atmosphere doesn't really act like an oven or a freezer. Anyway, how does this explain the melting of the ice caps?

"If the ice caps do seem to be the most accurate indicator to you how do you take those factors that I've mentioned into account and how do you explain the antarctic glaciers growing until 2006 in your model?"

Chris, the arctic ice caps were melting at a faster rate than the antarctic ice was growing. So the net change in the amount of ice was negative. It doesn't really matter how the energy swirls around - the net change is what matters.

Report this comment
#19) On July 24, 2011 at 4:14 PM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

Chris, ETF's lquadland,

Thank you all for your replies.

Best wishes,

Steven

 

Report this comment
#20) On July 24, 2011 at 7:49 PM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

Like I said earlier, it doesn't really matter if the ocean swirls around a bit. Over any significant period of time the heat will be transferred to the coldest object in proximity to the oceans - the ice caps.

That's actually not true, and we'll touch on why not a little below but there is a lot more to it than  the little info that i use to explain the other things below.

That's an interesting thing to say. Are you just trying to be disagreeable, or do you honestly believe that there has been an increase in ocean salinity to the extent that it could start to melt the ice caps? 

Again, this is a little more complicated than  I'm paraphrasing below, but the ocean salinity is not constant around the entire ocean and a difference in salinity between the glaciers and the water around them is enough to speed up or slow down melting. Salinity also effects ocean currents to the point that they can divert very warm water and very cold water directly at the glacier. Here's an experiment to try at home... 

Take an ice cube tray and create a bunch of ice cubes that you have colored with food coloring. Fill 2 cups of with very cold water and add a TBSP of salt to one of them and drop an ice cube in each. Fill 2 cups with warm water and add a TBSP of salt to one of them and repeat. Report on what you see happening. I think you might be suprised with the results. Pay very close attention to the colored water as the ice cube melts.

Can you elaborate on this? It sounds like you've been studying some very complex science. 

Try these and then ask me whatever questions that you have 

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/site/misc/geospace.xhtml 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray 

http://books.google.com/books?id=EAcAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=magnetic+field+effects+on+cosmic+rays+polar+ice+caps&source=bl&ots=cedse5YXSP&sig=cggOfH0Zb0JVMPc5atksRkmRf7w&hl=en&ei=IaYsTsizJ5O50AG8iajkDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=magnetic%20field%20effects%20on%20cosmic%20rays%20polar%20ice%20caps&f=false

The book in the last link also talks a little about the ozone layer and a whole lot about melting ice caps in general. It would be a very good book to read if you are really interested in this type of stuff. Also lquadland gave you an example of how a magnetic shift can effect the melting of ice.

 This would just cause more energy to enter the Earth's atmosphere. I don't see how this goes against anything that I've said. When additional energy is transferred to the Earth, the vast majority of it will be absorbed by the oceans and the ice caps - not the air. 

The holes in the ozone layer are directly over the ice caps which means that the ice caps are unshielded from cosmic rays. You could literally have another ice age and with a big enough hole in the ozone, there would be no ice caps at all. The poles could be surrounded by ice, but they would be a pool of water surrounded by ice.

 I already touched on this, but the Earth's atmosphere doesn't really act like an oven or a freezer. Anyway, how does this explain the melting of the ice caps?

I'm sorry but I don't see where you touched on the fact that the Earth's atmospere doen't have anything to do with global warming. If this is true, you have just proven Al Gore's climate theory totally wrong because it depends on Carbon in the atmosphere heating things up.

Experiment #2 place an ice cube in a warm glass of water in the freezer for an hour and see what happens. 

Chris, the arctic ice caps were melting at a faster rate than the antarctic ice was growing. So the net change in the amount of ice was negative. It doesn't really matter how the energy swirls around - the net change is what matters. 

Ah my young grasshopper, but there was cooling on the other side if you are looking strictly at ice. Obviously there are other factors that effect the antarctic ice other than temperature. Antarctic ice wasn't just expanding, it was expanding 5 times faster rate than the previous 150 years. So it's not as simple as looking at whether or not ice is melting. Now if you really want to see a warming event, pay attention if you see a massive release of methane in the Northern permafrost. Methane is a gas that actually does have a meaningful effect on global warming.  It will be short lived effect relatively speaking. (methane has a half-life in the atmosphere of about 7 years) but I wouldn't be suprised to see a 2-3 degree change in global tempurature in that short amount of time. You will see some unique weather events in those 7 years if that happens.

Go ahead and try the experiments and read those links and ask whatever questions that you have. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#21) On July 24, 2011 at 9:35 PM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

Interesting discussion of antartic ice gain. Have you consulted with the folks who actually measure the ice?Since late 2005 (the cut-off date for work assessed by IPCC AR4), further studies of ice accumulation and loss ('mass budget') in Greenland and Antarctica have been made using satellite altimetry, satellite gravity measurements and estimates of the difference between net snowfall and discharge of ice. These confirm that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing ice mass and contributing to sea level rise.

These new estimates suggest that the total annual loss from Antarctica since 1993 is around 100 Gt/yr (100 billion tonnes of ice per year; equivalent to ~0.25 mm/yr of global sea level rise). While the range of estimates from the different studies is large (from near zero to 0.5 mm/yr of sea level rise) they all suggest a net loss. Ice loss has been greatest along coastal sectors of the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica. However, ice thickening (gain) further inland and over most of East Antarctica may have partially offset this loss. All of the available estimates, however, show that the loss of mass in West Antarctica is greater than any added mass in East Antarctica.

I am certain I would not try to assuage concern for global warming based upon the belief that antartic sea ice is increasing, when it is not.

Chris,

The positive feedback from the release of methane gas has been a concern of climate scientists who predicted increased temperatures from CO2, melting the permafrost. If they are proven correct I do not believe I will let someone as wrong as you have been, be the one to tell me not to try to stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, or that it will be a short lived problem.

Sunspots, solar minimum, volcanoes, orbit, gamma rays, mars warming etc. You seem to be todays standard bearer for the climate change ABC club - Anything But Co2.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#22) On July 24, 2011 at 10:18 PM, ETFsRule (99.89) wrote:

Chris: I'll read through your links when I have more time. But I think your position is now starting to make more sense to me, so maybe I can be more productive here.

Would it be fair to summarize your beliefs like this?

1. Climate change (AKA global warming) is indeed happening.

2. Global warming is probably caused, at least partially, by man-made sources.

3. CO2 is not one of the sources causing global warming.

Now, in this very discussion you have affirmed that you believe in #1 and #2 above (you said this in comment #17).

So, in light of this fact, I don't understand why you were motivated to disagree with Devoish's original blog post. What part of that post did you disagree with??

You said:

"I'm confused.

Did you mean record lows?"

Now, since you have said yourself that the Earth is indeed warming, I don't understand why you said this?

Also, the first video you posted here seems to contradict the position that you took in comment #17 (that the Earth is indeed warming, and that this is being caused by humans).

I hope this clears up my confusion in trying to discuss this topic with you.

Report this comment
#23) On July 25, 2011 at 10:59 AM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

ETF's, you hit it pretty close with your last summation.

I'll elaborate a little more...

1. Depends on what time frame that you are looking at. We have been warming since the last Ice Age and that is normal coming out of an Ice Age. Over the last decade we have been cooling though.

2. Yes, man has altered the planet to contribute to warming. Especially in the Urban areas. This is easy to test simply by measuring the difference in temperatures in rural areas that are near cities.

3. CO2 is not a main cause of warming but it does contribute a tiny amount. Imagine your computer screen being a blank white page on which you type your name. The total number of pixels that it took to type your name relative to the rest of the white space on the screen is approximate to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. (about 380 ppm). Now this tiny amount of CO2 can't even absorb the entire heat spectrum. It can only absorb a tiny slice of it. So a majority of heat passes right through CO2 and there isn't much CO2 in the atmosphere relative to the other stuff up in there. Water Vapor on the other hand absorbs much more heat and there is a huge amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. (approx 30,000 ppm) The GW people love to show the graphs comparing Carbon levels to temperature, but what they don't tell is that Carbon lags temperature by about 100 years. Which begs the question "How does the atmosphere know that Carbon's on the way 100 years ahead of time?" It doesn't. When it gets hot, the oceans off-gas Carbon.

As far as my response to Steven, it was address to the fact that he was deliberately try to sell weather as climate and he knows it. One month is not climate data and for that matter, the decade of cooling that I responded with is not climate data either. It's weather. The fact that he then tries to project that escalltion out until the 2100 is both ludacris and contrived.

Steven, I don't have access to videos at work, but when I get home I'll respond to your post #21 with a video.

Report this comment
#24) On July 25, 2011 at 7:07 PM, ETFsRule (99.89) wrote:

"Water Vapor on the other hand absorbs much more heat and there is a huge amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. (approx 30,000 ppm)"

But, you're not considering the fact that radiative forcing (AKA the greenhouse effect) doesn't occur throughout the entire atmosphere: it takes place in the tropopause, from about 8-18 km in altitude. This is where heat will either escape the atmosphere, or it will become partially "trapped" by radiative forcing.

In the troposphere, it's true that water vapor makes up around 3% of the air. But most of that is in the lower part of the troposphere, right over the oceans.

In the tropopause, there is more CO2 than water vapor. CO2 is constant at about 345 ppm, but water vapor quickly drops below this amount after you go up to about 10 km in altitude. By the time you reach 18 km, there is almost 100 times more CO2 than water vapor in the air. That's why CO2 is the much more significant greenhouse gas. This can all be seen here, especially in figures 1 and 2.

Report this comment
#25) On July 25, 2011 at 10:04 PM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

Whoa,

That's a lot of bad info packed into a small paragraph.

First of all, what magic do you think the tropopause has where greenhouse gases can only absorb heat in that region? You can bench test the heat absorption of both Carbon and water vapor right here on Earth. There is no magic and long wave infrared gets absorbed down here on Earth the same as it does in the Troposhpere, Tropopause, Mesosphere or Ionoshpere

Next if trapping heat is the main mechanism for global warming, would it warm the Earth more if the heat was closer or farther away? 

Third the tropopause is a tiny sliver of the Earth's atmosphere. (It averages out to be about a 7 mile band of atmosphere)The only reason why the tropopause is singled out is for the same reason that water vapor absorbs so much more heat. It's heavy. Most of it stays below the tropopause, but it actually makes it into the stratosphere during severe storms (especially storms that have gravitational waves). Carbon does make it up higher in the troposhphere because it is a lot lighter, but it also absorbs a lot less heat for the same reason. There is no magic in the tropopause though. Carbon and water vapor absorb heat the same way no matter where they are and there is a thousand times more water vapor and it absorbs heat at about 3 times the efficiency.

The tropopause is pointed out by people trying desperately to find a correlation between CO2 and temperature. 

I know that none of this changes your opinion, but maybe you can explain how the atmoshpere heats up about 100 years before the Carbon gets there and how does it know that it's coming? 

 

Report this comment
#26) On July 25, 2011 at 11:32 PM, ETFsRule (99.89) wrote:

"That's a lot of bad info packed into a small paragraph."

If my info is "bad", then why don't you point out one single thing that was factually incorrect in that paragraph?

"First of all, what magic do you think the tropopause has where greenhouse gases can only absorb heat in that region?"

I don't think there is any "magic" at all. It's kind of sad that you have to resort to this sort of condescending rhetoric to make yourself think that you're "winning the argument". Greenhouse gases can absorb heat at the same rate regardless of where they are located.

If you would take the time to research radiative forcing, you would understand why this process is only significant when it happens in the tropopause. This phenomenon has nothing to do with gases absorbing energy and "holding" it for extended periods of time, as you seem to think.

The tropopause is essentially a barrier layer. Above it, the atmosphere becomes much thinner. So, any heat that rises above the tropopause will keep going and escape the atmosphere.

Now, when you increase the amount of CO2 in the tropopause, it acts like a layer of insulation. Radiative forcing is simply the mechanism by which this insulation operates. It absorbs energy, for a very short amount of time, and then radiates that energy outward, equally, in all directions (because that's how radiation works). This results in some of that energy making its way back down towards the Earth - energy that otherwise would have escaped the atmosphere, if not for the interference of those greenhouse gases.

The greenhouse effect isn't about gases "holding" energy. It's about gases redirecting energy. 

If this phenomenon takes place in the lower troposphere, it doesn't matter. It just results in energy moving around in random directions. It doesn't cause any net change in the amount of energy that is trapped in the atmosphere.

"I know that none of this changes your opinion, but maybe you can explain how the atmoshpere heats up about 100 years before the Carbon gets there and how does it know that it's coming?"

Now you're changing the subject. And I'm sure you've had this explained before. It's a spiral effect. More carbon causes more heat. And, more heat causes more carbon, because a hotter atmosphere can hold more carbon. It works both ways.

Besides, it would take a lot more than one little arrow to convince me that temperatures always rose before carbon levels. Where is the statistical analysis from your so-called "skeptic"??

And before you post a link to something like this, I hope you'll stop and take a look at the graph first.

You can clearly see that the red line passes an inflection point and starts rising roughly 18,000 years ago. The blue line doesn't start rising until 17,000 years ago. They found a quote from someone saying that temperatures started rising 19,000 years ago... but this clearly isn't what we are seeing in that graph.

If you are going to convince me that tempertature changes generally precede changes in CO2 levels, you are going to have to do a lot better than that! Let's see some careful, scientific analysis of this relationship... I'll be waiting right here!

Report this comment
#27) On July 26, 2011 at 9:06 PM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

I'm sorry for just responding now, but I just got in and being a football fan I'd like to read up on the Free Agent signings before going to bed tonight, so I'll respond tomorrow. 

As far as the careful scientific analysis that you're demanding, I'll try my best, but given this last post, I'm not sure that you want it, given how you just overlooked valid points in my last post and then butchered the standard BS that most GW posters post to the point that they wouldn't even agree with you, but we'll lay it out step by step and point by point. (The whole 19,000 years thing gave me a chuckle btw)

LOL, I hope it meets your high standards once completed. 

Report this comment
#28) On July 28, 2011 at 8:25 AM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

ETF's,

If you have been paying attention to the climate "debate" there are those who believe the science of CO2 caused climate warming and the "ABC" club. Anything But Co2.

Good luck with Chris.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#29) On July 28, 2011 at 6:41 PM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

Alright time to lay it out step by step.

First measuring glacier melt is a poor way to measure climate change because there are way too many variables that you have to account for. Ice could be melting when it shouldn't be based on temperature and visa versa.

Next, radiative forcing does not take place only in the tropopause. It actually takes place over the enitire atmosphere. Most GHG's are in the tropopause and below and radiative forcing is much more efficient in the tropopause and below because some reflected heat will get diflected trying to break the tropopause.

So if all the Carbon was only in the tropopause and all the water vapor was only in the tropospere they both would still be absorbing and reflecting heat and there would still not enough Carbon to make a meaningful difference.

Next, radiative forcing in the tropopause is actually less efficient than the troposphere because each GHG redirects heat in random directions sometimes toward Earth and sometimes away from earth. Since the tropopuase is farther away from the earth, the heat directed away from the Earth is less likely to hit another GHG and more likely to leak into the stratosphere.

If Carbon off-gassing was a spiral effect like you claim, then it would show in the climate graphs. They would all be huge escallating spikes that could only be stopped by some sort of huge forcing such as massive particulate matter in the atmosphere or a total depletion of Carbon in the oceans because a spiral effect like that would perpetually feed on itself until it ran out food. Ice core samples would show literally zero carbon right before the climate cooled or they would show huge amounts of volcanic ash etc...

Which brings me to another point...

Carbon lags cooling on the decline as well. If Carbon was such a big forcing, this should be impossible. This shows that the Earth is cooling while the Carbon is still up there. 

As far as me convincing you that temperatures preceed Carbon, just about every climate scientist admits it now since the Al Gore chart came out. I don't demonstrate much other than you should find validation on any of your normal climate change websites that you go to.

Now about the 19,000 yr ago thing. I'm not actually sure where you were going with this one. The climate cycle began much earlier than 19,000 yrs ago. Even if you were talking specifically about that chart, you should be able to draw a line straight down at any point and see that Carbon lags temperature. 

Hopefully you have tried the two experiments and now understand why ice melt my not be the best way to measure climate change. Now ice melt is the thing that we should be most worried about. It will be what causes the most devastation predicted by climate stooges. So, managing glacier melt should be much more important than managing something that has little to do with climate change anyway.

Last, despite how bad global warming sounds, the upcoming ice age will be 10 times worse. It won't wipe out a percentage of civilization. It will wipe out civilization. It's past due. If we need to worry about managing anything, it's the next ice age.

Devoish reminds me of Spike Lee in the Nike commercial.

Despite all evidence pointing elsewhere he's gonna keep repeating "Gotta be the CO2" just like that Treehugger website told him to say.

 

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#30) On July 28, 2011 at 9:39 PM, ETFsRule (99.89) wrote:

"As far as the careful scientific analysis that you're demanding, I'll try my best, but given this last post, I'm not sure that you want it"

I assure you, I do. And actually, I responded to pretty much everything you said in that post. Which important point did I fail to respond to?

Anyway, I look forward to your response, which I'm sure will be filled with plenty of scientific references, facts, figures, data, etc.

"First measuring glacier melt is a poor way to measure climate change because there are way too many variables that you have to account for. Ice could be melting when it shouldn't be based on temperature and visa versa."

You said this earlier, but you haven't provided any scientific data to support the theory that glaciers are being melted by other sources.

Also, any other indicator would also have lots of variable to account for. Don't you think there are a lot of variables that affect global temperatures??

"Next, radiative forcing does not take place only in the tropopause. It actually takes place over the enitire atmosphere. Most GHG's are in the tropopause and below and radiative forcing is much more efficient in the tropopause and below because some reflected heat will get diflected trying to break the tropopause."

Ok... this is pretty much what I said (sort of).

"If Carbon off-gassing was a spiral effect like you claim, then it would show in the climate graphs. They would all be huge escallating spikes that could only be stopped by some sort of huge forcing such as massive particulate matter in the atmosphere or a total depletion of Carbon in the oceans because a spiral effect like that would perpetually feed on itself until it ran out food. Ice core samples would show literally zero carbon right before the climate cooled or they would show huge amounts of volcanic ash etc..."

The causes of global heating and cooling cycles are not fully understood, but without a doubt they are caused by a number of different factors, many of which have nothing to do with CO2 (yes, volcanic ash is one proposed theory - and there are several others). To say that there would be zero carbon before a cooling cycle began, is a ludicrous oversimplification.

"Now about the 19,000 yr ago thing. I'm not actually sure where you were going with this one. The climate cycle began much earlier than 19,000 yrs ago.

Chris, I meant exactly what I said. It was very clear. And yes I was using that specific graph (and their explanation of it) as an example.

"Even if you were talking specifically about that chart, you should be able to draw a line straight down at any point and see that Carbon lags temperature."

What?! Where is the rigorous, statistical analysis of the data that you were going to show me??

Here was your exact quote:

"The GW people love to show the graphs comparing Carbon levels to temperature, but what they don't tell is that Carbon lags temperature by about 100 years."

Where did you come up with the 100 year number? That's a pretty specific number, after all. And for a skeptical person such as yourself, it must have taken a painstaking amount of research and evidence to make you believe in such a relationship.

This would be a pretty significant event in the scientific world, if someone really performed this type of analysis and came to the conclusion that you have described. What is your source? Was this analysis published in any peer-reviewed journals? Show me the science!!!

"Hopefully you have tried the two experiments and now understand why ice melt my not be the best way to measure climate change."

I did not perform the experiment, and no, I do not understand why ice melt is not the best indicator. In order for your experiment to be valid, you would first need to prove to me that there are increasing salt concentrations near the polar ice caps, which correspond with observed trends in the melting of those ice caps. If these increasing salt concentrations have not been observed, then your experiment is invalid because it does not simulate what is happening in the real world.

And, I'm not going to respond to the part where you tried to drag politics and personal attacks into it. Lets just stick to the scientific evidence.

Report this comment
#31) On July 29, 2011 at 1:40 AM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

OK, this is starting to get old, but I'll jump in one more time even though you keep demanding scientific analysis and then ignoring it every time that I give it to you.

I assure you, I do. And actually, I responded to pretty much everything you said in that post. Which important point did I fail to respond to? 

Sure, you have responded to everything. You haven't thought about anything that I told you though, or much about what you've told me. The truth is that you are jumping in just to win an argument and you don't have half of an understanding about what you are arguing about.

You said this earlier, but you haven't provided any scientific data to support the theory that glaciers are being melted by other sources.

I can't make you understand what you don't understand, but I did explain in depth why glaciers can melt for reasons other than temperature. You can choose to ignore them them if you want, but the reasons are still real.

Ok... this is pretty much what I said (sort of).

If you would take the time to research radiative forcing, you would understand why this process is only significant when it happens in the tropopause. 

Uhm I did, and the minute you tried to sell the whole tropopause thing to me, I knew that you didn't. 

The causes of global heating and cooling cycles are not fully understood, but without a doubt they are caused by a number of different factors, many of which have nothing to do with CO2 (yes, volcanic ash is one proposed theory - and there are several others). To say that there would be zero carbon before a cooling cycle began, is a ludicrous oversimplification. 

I'll agree that they are not fully understood, but in your case they aren't even remotely understood. Volcanic ash does not contribute to warming, but to cooling. Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth! This is science mr listening impared. There has to be a bigger cooling forcing or all the Carbon has to be burned up. You can pick one, but you better pick one. There are no other choices! Does this whole put it in bold thing help you to pay attention? 

What?! Where is the rigorous, statistical analysis of the data that you were going to show me??

 If you can't draw a line straight down and understand that you are stupid, I can't help you.

The above is science. Draw a line straight down. To the right will be temperature. To the left will be CO2. If you can't understand this, you should not be arguing in any science type thread. This is not a trick. this is a visual observation and if you see anything different you can post it all over TMF and the liberals will love you for it.

Where did you come up with the 100 year number? That's a pretty specific number, after all. And for a skeptical person such as yourself, it must have taken a painstaking amount of research and evidence to make you believe in such a relationship. 

Thank you for asking. Most other websites show Carbon lags temperature 600 to 900 years. This is true for the extreme, but the average is about 350 years. I'm so used to arguing about climate change enough, that all I have to do is argue 100 years. Anybody on the other side that knows what they are talking about immediately shuts up at that point because they know that I'm giving them at least a couple of hundred years.

 This would be a pretty significant event in the scientific world, if someone really performed this type of analysis and came to the conclusion that you have described. What is your source? Was this analysis published in any peer-reviewed journals? Show me the science!!!

I'm not exactly sure about what popped into your head when you wrote this, but if you elaborate, I'll do my best.

I did not perform the experiment, and no, I do not understand why ice melt is not the best indicator. In order for your experiment to be valid, you would first need to prove to me that there are increasing salt concentrations near the polar ice caps, which correspond with observed trends in the melting of those ice caps. If these increasing salt concentrations have not been observed, then your experiment is invalid because it does not simulate what is happening in the real world. 

Well, if you did the experiment you would understand, so you might as well say that you don't want to understand and are just following orders from your party. I feel like you were sent out here as a joke. If I said the sky was blue you'd claim it was it a political trick. "Show me scientific proof that the sky is blue!"

As far as the real world goes, I live in the real world. You live in liberal land.

As far as what we should do to come to an understanding, you need to try to understand the words that are coming out of my mouth.

I'll regret it, but I'll show up tomorrow to argue your scientific opinion. 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#32) On July 29, 2011 at 11:04 AM, ETFsRule (99.89) wrote:

"I can't make you understand what you don't understand, but I did explain in depth why glaciers can melt for reasons other than temperature. You can choose to ignore them them if you want, but the reasons are still real."

You obviously didn't pay attention to my response. Yes, I agree with you 100% that glaciers can melt for reasons other than temperature. Absolutely.

However, that is purely theoretical. Do you understand what I am saying to you right now?

If you are arguing that glaciers actually are melting for reasons other than temperature, then there should be scientific evidence to support that theory. Do you understand? So, if you think salt is melting the glaciers, then there should be evidence of higher salt concentrations. Do you get it now?

Like I said, there are many factors that can affect glacier melting, but the same is also true of global temperatures. So, you have not "proven" that temperatures are a better indicator. Is that clear enough, Chris?

"The above is science. Draw a line straight down. To the right will be temperature. To the left will be CO2."

Chris, this is your theory, not mine. You should provide evidence to support it.

Are you telling me that none of your Exxon-funded conservatives have ever bothered to "draw the line"? Is that why you can't provide a source?

"Thank you for asking. Most other websites show Carbon lags temperature 600 to 900 years. This is true for the extreme, but the average is about 350 years. I'm so used to arguing about climate change enough, that all I have to do is argue 100 years."

Chris, you're falling apart here. This is why I asked you to post the statistical analysis. For one thing, what is the reason for the lag time? Please give your scientific explanation. If temperatures cause higher CO2 levels, but not vice-versa, then why does this take hundreds of years to take effect? I don't know of any other area of science where the laws of physics will get put "on hold", and wait hundreds of years to take effect. To give an example: if you bounce a basketball, gravity will instantly start to pull on it - and this effect can be observed and measured instantly. It doesn't wait a hundred years to start working.

And you haven't explained why the lag time can be as short as 100 years sometimes, but up to 900 years at other times.

Are you talking about different periods of time being studied, or are they studying the same period of time and coming up with results that differ by a factor of 800%?

Now, you have mentioned "websites", but you have still failed to provide even a single source to support your theory. And you haven't answered my question about whether or not these studies were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. That's a pretty standard practice for any scientific finding of this magnitude.

You remind me of Jamie Gold (the poker player). He had a great run one year. He's an outspoken, brash personality, and for a while he was able to give the impression that he was a great poker player. But for years now, he has failed to have any success. Why? Because, he's always bluffing. And when bluffing is your only move, it's just a matter of time before people start to see through it :-)

Report this comment
#33) On July 31, 2011 at 12:07 PM, ChrisGraley (31.57) wrote:

OK, I'm back in one last time.

So, from a very basic, fundamental level, everyone should try to agree on this: what is the best way to determine whether or not the Earth is warming? As I've said earlier, the melting of the ice caps seems to be the most accurate indicator - and I'll be happy to explain this if it needs clarification. 

This is your theory to prove buddy. I have given you reasons why it's flawed, so the burden is on you. If you would have actually done the experiments that I mentioned, you would realize that it's a hopeless argument.

Chris, this is your theory, not mine. You should provide evidence to support it. 

The graph is right freakin in front of you. The fact the you don't know how to read it is not my fault. It is freakin evidence and the fact that you don't understand that amazes me.

Chris, you're falling apart here. This is why I asked you to post the statistical analysis. For one thing, what is the reason for the lag time? Please give your scientific explanation. If temperatures cause higher CO2 levels, but not vice-versa, then why does this take hundreds of years to take effect? I don't know of any other area of science where the laws of physics will get put "on hold", and wait hundreds of years to take effect. To give an example: if you bounce a basketball, gravity will instantly start to pull on it - and this effect can be observed and measured instantly. It doesn't wait a hundred years to start working. 

The oceans off-gas CO2 when they get hot. It takes a while for CO2 to off-gas. CO2 does effect temperature, just not in a meaningful way. If it did, you would see the instant results that you are looking for. The fact that Carbon also lags cooling is a tell tale sign. The climate is cooling while the Carbon is still in the atmoshpere. You can see it on that graph. (well not you, but most people with half a brain could see it.)

And you haven't explained why the lag time can be as short as 100 years sometimes, but up to 900 years at other times. 

Are you talking about different periods of time being studied, or are they studying the same period of time and coming up with results that differ by a factor of 800%? 

Oceans off-gas Carbon faster at higher temperatures and slower at lower temps. 

Now, you have mentioned "websites", but you have still failed to provide even a single source to support your theory. And you haven't answered my question about whether or not these studies were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. That's a pretty standard practice for any scientific finding of this magnitude. 

Listen, I would love to give you more data, but we can't even get you past reading a simple graph or performing an ice-cube experiment.

Honestly, if you can't see my point by looking at that graph, this is hopeless. Did you take any science in school at all?

How can someone on an investment site not be able to read a simple graph? 

Anyway, this is a waste of time if I'm going to keep going around in circles to argue with someone that doesn't even understand his own point of view. Comparing gravity to climate change proves that you're clueless. 

 

 

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement