Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[eclipsenow]

.

Pure Alarmism.

Read the above again for what it is - Alarmism.

Read the above again for what it is - truth

Global Warming has been dominant by natural factors, as in all of time past.

Global Warming has been dominant by human factors, unlike all of time past.

The natural forces and processes that controlled Earth's past temperature, weather, and climate change over time, called natural variability, has not changed.

But they're not driving it now.

There is no evidence presented showing Anthropogenic CO2 emissions through GHG Effect has increased Earth's temperature.

This is known physics that was discovered nearly 2 centuries years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Watch the candle demonstrate the heat diverting properties of CO2. Starts 90 seconds in.

Mathematics around more CO2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Global Warming = ocean warming
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2201/

Glaciers retreating:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/glacier-retreat

Sea level rise

More severe cyclones
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php

It will make a wetter atmosphere, which makes storms worse and the mother-of-all feedback loops
http://earthsky.org/earth/frank-wentz-will-global-warming-bring-more-rainfall
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...mosphere-driving-Mother-of-all-Feedback-Loops

Rising oceans could see 100 million people on the move
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

Period.

.

There is the physics. But applied in a intricately coupled complex parameter controlled open thermodynamic system there is no evidence - only pure hypothetical claims.

Blah blah blah. Quickly, say some words that sound techie, and the world is yours! (Except you haven't actually said anything REAL, just words and words and words.)

The Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age. It is called the Modern Warm Period.

It's been doing a lot of things since the LIA, and one of them is warming from our increased, measurable, Fourier-device confirmed CO2 emissions.

By observations, not speculation, we can firsthand see natural factors controlling Earth's temperature, as easily recognized by the current no increase in Earth's temperature for 15 plus years.

Incorrect! The last few decades have been the hottest on record. You're not admitting the truth here.

No increase in Earth's temperature in 15 plus years. What has caused that?

Strawman argument! If you actually think climatologists see increased CO2 and run a straight line up, then you're misunderstanding climate science.

We've told you what the answer is before, but you do not listen. So why should I bother again?

Remember that natural variability has not magically disappear.

We've told you what the answer is before, but you do not listen. So why should I bother again?

And we do not need to continue to go hypothetical and speculative that the "heat is going into the oceans" for the past 15 years.

Yes you do, that is the answer. Right now what you're trying is the intellectual equivalent of shouting...
"Look, shiny thing over there!"

Some do not get it, even to examine mother nature and her works first. Natural variability explains things nicely.

So EXPLAIN IT! I've asked you a million times what the counter-theory is? Why are the oceans warming so much? Why does a Fourier device confirm the radiative process of CO2 every time? Why are the ice-caps melting, glaciers retreating, seasons changing, ecosystems retreating?

Now if others want to jump off of an economic cliff, so be it.

Please demonstrate that France jumped off an economic cliff when they converted to 75% nuclear decades ago. Please somehow disprove that they are the world's LARGEST electricity exporter. Go ahead. I dare you.

If others want to view energy from buried hydrocarbons as wicked and dirty, so be it.

They are wicked and dirty, and not only cause climate change but kill 3 million people a year. Are you happy, as a Christian, defending such a dangerous and dirty industry when there are clean, safer alternatives? What does your Christian conscience do about all the blatant untruth's you're peddling? Coal IS dirty! It is a Chernobyl every year! Please look up the deaths per terrawatt by energy source. Go to peer reviewed medical journals. Investigate this properly, as coal kills!

But Alarmism needs to be exposed as it ramps in hype and "duty", i.e. the now rising Climate Justice progression.

Embrace climate justice. It's the future. So are Integral Fast Reactors and Molten Salt (thorium) reactors. Here's JFK with THE ANSWER TO CLIMATE CHANGE way back decades ago. Climate change is real, 3 million deaths from coal pollution is real, your responsibility to be honest about all this as a Christian is real, and the solution is real. Deal with it.

JFK tours Weinberg's MSR, the ultimate answer for all our energy problems. (Today we can build AP1000's, tomorrow GE's S-PRISM, and finally the LFTR that Weinberg's prototype will one day lead to!)

 

[Paulos23]

Read RGB's post above and the first post.

How accurate can the Earth's Global Temperature be measured? What ways is it being measured and stated? Are "anomaly databases" sufficient? Is one temperature value caculated and used for the Earth's average temperature for a day, week or year period accurate and mean anything? When plotted aside other "Global Earth Temperature values" (for a period of time like a month or year) have any accuracy to mean anything?

Why have climate scientists produced such? Why haven't climate scientists openly debunked such data and methodology, listing the glaring uncertainties and how the graphed data can be misleading?

When we hear "warmest year ever" and notice two decimal places needed for proof, who is up to what and why?

While questioning the measuring of the Earth's Global Temperature is a good question, this is answerable with a quick Google: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...n-interview-with-meteorologist-richard-allan/

But since you like to just like answers that support your narrative, I can understand why you wouldn't want to do that.

 

[Heissonear]

More data. Now go calculate to the second decimal for July 16, 2015 and think it's real.

 

[Heissonear]

Read the above again for what it is - truth

Global Warming has been dominant by human factors, unlike all of time past.

But they're not driving it now.



This is known physics that was discovered nearly 2 centuries years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Watch the candle demonstrate the heat diverting properties of CO2. Starts 90 seconds in.

Mathematics around more CO2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Global Warming = ocean warming
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2201/

Glaciers retreating:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/glacier-retreat

Sea level rise

More severe cyclones
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php

It will make a wetter atmosphere, which makes storms worse and the mother-of-all feedback loops
http://earthsky.org/earth/frank-wentz-will-global-warming-bring-more-rainfall
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...mosphere-driving-Mother-of-all-Feedback-Loops

Rising oceans could see 100 million people on the move
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/



.


Blah blah blah. Quickly, say some words that sound techie, and the world is yours! (Except you haven't actually said anything REAL, just words and words and words.)


It's been doing a lot of things since the LIA, and one of them is warming from our increased, measurable, Fourier-device confirmed CO2 emissions.


Incorrect! The last few decades have been the hottest on record. You're not admitting the truth here.


Strawman argument! If you actually think climatologists see increased CO2 and run a straight line up, then you're misunderstanding climate science.

We've told you what the answer is before, but you do not listen. So why should I bother again?


We've told you what the answer is before, but you do not listen. So why should I bother again?

Yes you do, that is the answer. Right now what you're trying is the intellectual equivalent of shouting...
"Look, shiny thing over there!"


So EXPLAIN IT! I've asked you a million times what the counter-theory is? Why are the oceans warming so much? Why does a Fourier device confirm the radiative process of CO2 every time? Why are the ice-caps melting, glaciers retreating, seasons changing, ecosystems retreating?


Please demonstrate that France jumped off an economic cliff when they converted to 75% nuclear decades ago. Please somehow disprove that they are the world's LARGEST electricity exporter. Go ahead. I dare you.


They are wicked and dirty, and not only cause climate change but kill 3 million people a year. Are you happy, as a Christian, defending such a dangerous and dirty industry when there are clean, safer alternatives? What does your Christian conscience do about all the blatant untruth's you're peddling? Coal IS dirty! It is a Chernobyl every year! Please look up the deaths per terrawatt by energy source. Go to peer reviewed medical journals. Investigate this properly, as coal kills!


Embrace climate justice. It's the future. So are Integral Fast Reactors and Molten Salt (thorium) reactors. Here's JFK with THE ANSWER TO CLIMATE CHANGE way back decades ago. Climate change is real, 3 million deaths from coal pollution is real, your responsibility to be honest about all this as a Christian is real, and the solution is real. Deal with it.

JFK tours Weinberg's MSR, the ultimate answer for all our energy problems. (Today we can build AP1000's, tomorrow GE's S-PRISM, and finally the LFTR that Weinberg's prototype will one day lead to!)

Easy to see, you have learned how to present the 12 points in how to protect CO2 Alarmism.

You were probably proud after writing it.

Yes, CO2 Alarmism has pushed many away from "AGW". Extremism does that. Just like the people who cut through a fense to lie across a runway to stop aircraft traffic have turned people off from "their cause".

Nice and sensible people, one's to listen to and agree with. /Not.

Once the agenda is taken to heart broadcasting it openly before others "works within them", and to them it's sensible and needed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Easy to see, you have learned how to present the 12 points in how to protect CO2 Alarmism.

You were probably proud after writing it.

Yes, CO2 Alarmism has pushed many away from "AGW". Extremism does that. Just like the people who cut through a fense to lie across a runway to stop aircraft traffic have turned people off from "their cause".

Nice and sensible people, one's to listen to and agree with. /Not.

Once the agenda is taken to heart broadcasting it openly before others "works within them", and to them it's sensible and needed.

The only extremists are the science deniers who have to run away from 200 years of science demonstrating that CO2 traps heat.

 

[[serious]]

More data. Now go calculate to the second decimal for July 16, 2015 and think it's real.

View attachment 160907

Now, earlier in this thread, I asked you to find a single person anywhere reporting an absolute global average temperature. You eventually found one newspaper that reported such a number. Do you remember how hard you had to look to even find a non-scientist who reported such a number? Do you recall how it wasn't even a science focused news source, but rather the Washington post?

As you recall, I quite readily admitted that:
"if your point is that the Washington post is terrible at reporting science stories, I agree. The temperature data does not provide necessary resolution to determine the average temperature of the planet to that precision. Washington post is very clearly not an authority on the topic."

That is why no one but you, and apparently some random reporter from WaPo, talks about or uses such a figure. They use temperature anomaly.

 

[Heissonear]

Now, earlier in this thread, I asked you to find a single person anywhere reporting an absolute global average temperature. You eventually found one newspaper that reported such a number. Do you remember how hard you had to look to even find a non-scientist who reported such a number? Do you recall how it wasn't even a science focused news source, but rather the Washington post?

As you recall, I quite readily admitted that:
"if your point is that the Washington post is terrible at reporting science stories, I agree. The temperature data does not provide necessary resolution to determine the average temperature of the planet to that precision. Washington post is very clearly not an authority on the topic."

That is why no one but you, and apparently some random reporter from WaPo, talks about or uses such a figure. They use temperature anomaly.

You did not read Prof RGB statements a few posts earlier: the "anomaly" data and measurement in 1890 verses 1990.

Read RGB again.

 

[Heissonear]

The only extremists are the science deniers who have to run away from 200 years of science demonstrating that CO2 traps heat.

What heat? Show evidence of Earth heating up by CO2 please.

And first present what "natural factors have induced", as the baseline in your graphs.

Some ignore natural climate cycles and factors, like negative phases of both Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation combination in phase impact on the climate worldwide.

Some think any change in Earth temperature is CO2 based.

Natural factors have never went away. Your "radiation-centric" view of how Earth regulates energy is shy a dozen or more primary controlling parameters.

What did Earth do that caused the -80°C below in Antarctic? It's a world out there that about 120 ppm of additional CO2 went in to.

And you think the addition of CO2 is bad and catastrophic. Evidence please.

 

[amanuensis63]

What heat? Show evidence of Earth heating up by CO2 please.

And first present what "natural factors have induced", as the baseline in your graphs.

Here it is AGAIN (for like the billionth time)...

Here's the explanation: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm

I assume at this point that Heissonear has me on ignore because I present factual, scientific information and may have a better grasp of much of this science than he himself has. This threatens him.

With luck one of you with whom he still interacts can point these facts out to him so he will put YOU on ignore as well.

 

[Heissonear]

There happens to be a huge magnitude of atmospheric CO2 dissappearing.

Who said that once the CO2 generated by man is placed in the Earth's atmosphere that it will stay for thousands of years?

It appears that the size of the Earth and amount of plant life are saying something. Is there a world full of photosynthesizers? Is prolific plant production occurring on Earth?

Yes, there is more to learn about CO2 by observations.

But promoters of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming say CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is catastrophic, and we must decarbonize.

It appears that their "old information" needs to be discarded.

 

[Loudmouth]

What heat?

The heat radiating from the Earth. CO2 absorbs some of that infrared radiation that would otherwise go out into space. That is how the greenhouse effect works.

Are you really denying that the greenhouse effect is real?

 

[amanuensis63]

There happens to be a huge magnitude of atmospheric CO2 dissappearing.

Who said that once the CO2 generated by man is placed in the Earth's atmosphere that it will stay for thousands of years?

-sigh- It is painful to see someone who claims to be a geochemist know so little about the carbon cycle.

Since Heissonear won't read what I say because it has facts, I'm hopeful others will.

Any given individual CO2 molecule may only stay in the atmosphere a short time (3-4 years) it is likely to simply exchange with a CO2 molecule in the ocean.

The key to this sort of calculation is understanding the actual sink of the excess CO2. THe IPCC discusses this here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/133.htm

The problem is that EXCESS CO2 in the atmosphere has relatively show mechanisms to remove it. Absorption of excess CO2 into the atmosphere in the oceans is moderated by the ability to transport surface CO2 into deeper CO2-depleted waters. This process is relatively slow and related to ocean circulation and overturning. That's how the SCIENTISTS come up with numbers of 500-1000 year figures.

It appears that the size of the Earth and amount of plant life are saying something. Is there a world full of photosynthesizers? Is prolific plant production occurring on Earth?

Plants are largely carbon neutral. A growing plant will take in CO2 and when it DIES it will re-release this to the atmosphere.

Heissonear should know this whole thing better than he appears to know it. The excess carbon we are releasing back into the atmosphere is above and beyond the natural carbon cycles. Perhaps Heissonear doesn't know where OIL OR COAL come from. These things were sequestered out of the carbon cycle over a long period of time and have been in most cases held out of the carbon cycle for millions of years. Humanity has succeeded in release GIGATONS of this stuff in less than 2 centuries.

Even for someone with so little apparent science as Heissonear should be able to understand RATES.

Water is good for you to drink, but if you drank a lifetime's worth of water in a day and a half you'd have some SERIOUS, SERIOUS problems.

 

[Heissonear]

Once again, let's see the Earth's temperature be calculated for yesterdays averaged Global temperature for July 19, 2015 to the second decimal.

And how accurate would the July 19, 2015 be to what has been caculated for July 19, 1885?

The error for one day is magnified further for a Global Temperature for a year period.

We do not have coverage of the temperatures in the Antarctic today, much less in 1922.

But climate scientists continue to pawn second decimal place values for each year of the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

Once again, let's see the Earth's temperature be calculated for yesterdays averaged Global temperature for July 19, 2015 to the second decimal.

Do you still deny that CO2 traps heat?

 

[Heissonear]

Do you still deny that CO2 traps heat?

Why do you state the same thing over and over again - even afyer you have been answered over and over again?

You want to restate the letter "a" when we have discussed the alphabet, sentences, paragraphs , and books if information.

Once again the letter "a": CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is one of several Green House Gases, in that it absorbs select infrared wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. In particular the longwave radiation emitted from a solar heated Earth surface - meaning, it does not allow longwave IR to leave the Earth's surface directly into outer space. This GHG process is a slowing of LWIR released to outer space and thereby acts like a blanketing effect by slowing the LWIR release rate to space. "Trap" mean "capture and no release" which is not the proper term for the re-radiated LWIR by CO2. Absorption and re-radiation results in slowing the LWIR release into outer space.

Now, "a" is a given. The "settled science". Got it? Or are you going to make "a" the only issue?

Read on.

The graph below shows how much CO2 has been released in the past two decades but the atmosphere of Earth has stopped increasing in temperature. What's the deal?

Can you tell me afyer such prolific CO2 released in Earth's atmosphere over the past two decades "where is the heat blanketing effect" - why no temperature increase over the past 18 years and counting.

Do you see something a miss with saying "a" must be answered over and over and the heat cannot be found in Earth's atmosphere over recent time?

What recent observations are showing is showing is CO2 emissions to be a non-factor on Earth "Global Warming". Again, where is the heating of the atmosphere over the past 18 years?

Meanwhile all temperature changes of Earth observed since the LIA to present correlate to natural climate controlling factors.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you state the same thing over and over again - even afyer you have been answered over and over again?

You want to restate the letter "a" when we have discussed the alphabet, sentences, paragraphs , and books if information.

Once again the letter "a": CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is one of several Green House Gases, in that it absorbs select infrared wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.

What do you think happens when we increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Does it trap less heat, more heat, or the same amount of heat?

The graph below shows how much CO2 has been released in the past two decades but the atmosphere of Earth has stopped increasing in temperature. What's the deal?

Climate is chaotic, so we shouldn't expect a 1 to 1 perfect correlation between CO2 and temperature. Why would you expect to see one?

 

[Heissonear]

View attachment 161216

What do you think happens when we increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Does it trap less heat, more heat, or the same amount of heat?


Climate is chaotic, so we shouldn't expect a 1 to 1 perfect correlation between CO2 and temperature. Why would you expect to see one?

Why do you expect a linear result from increased LWIR absorption by increase in CO2 concentration?

Is that how you look at water vapor?

Does things heated in the atmosphere rise? Does CO2 re-radiate LWIR to water vapor? Does the rise cause vertical replacement (convection cells)? Ate vertical convection cells atmospheric cooling processes? Does most solar radiation happen within 10° each side of the equator? Wave you observed the daily convection cells along the equator? And why are these cells mostly along the equatorial region?

Does this sound like a single LWIR absorption process? Are you redundant on stating CO2 absorption but no re-radiate and the process that follow? And how these processes are intergral? And how they are natural systems daily regulating energy and heat transfer in the atmosphere?

It appears you do not see the bigger picture, and stay redundant on only stating CO2 is a GHG. Well, so is water vapor. And the tropics have always been saturated with such and have mechanisms to regulate. The same goes for other GHGs and natural processes like the Madden Julian Oscillations.

It's a world out there!

 

[DogmaHunter]

On a related note... Exxon got busted.

Scandals are exposed that eventhough internal emails prove that exxon officials knew about climate change as a result of fossil fuel burning as far back as 1981, since that time they have been paying millions to scientists. They paid them to deliberatly sow confusion and lie.

To make it look in the eye of the public that "scientists don't agree on this".

This campaign of misinformation and confusion clearly worked on the likes of Heissonear...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...bout-climate-change-and-fossil-fuels-in-1981#

What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that climate change was a reality; that it accepted the reality, instead of denying the reality as they have done publicly, and to such an extent that it took it into account in their decision making, in making their economic calculation,” the director of the Institute, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), told the Guardian.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mate-change-1981-funded-deniers-27-years.html

Exxon declined to develop field knowing it would have released 1% of projected global C02 emissions - but still funded climate change deniers

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you expect a linear result from increased LWIR absorption by increase in CO2 concentration?

Where did I say that I expected a linear result?

Is that how you look at water vapor?

The residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is only a few weeks. It can't drive long term climate change.

Does things heated in the atmosphere rise? Does CO2 re-radiate LWIR to water vapor?

So instead of that heat being radiated out into space it is redirected back to the atmosphere and the Earth. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

Are you really trying to cast doubt on this mechanism? I thought we were past that.

It appears you do not see the bigger picture, and stay redundant on only stating CO2 is a GHG. Well, so is water vapor.

With water vapor, you are always at saturation because of the short residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere. In order to get more water vapor into the atmosphere for long periods of time you have to increase the temperature first. With CO2, the residence time is measured in decades instead of weeks. Therefore, it can change long term climate. Also, due to the burning of fossil fuels we are seeing a temperature independent increase in CO2.

And the tropics have always been saturated with such and have mechanisms to regulate. The same goes for other GHGs and natural processes like the Madden Julian Oscillations.

That isn't true for CO2 which is why it is scientists have concluded that it is the main driver of recent warming.

 

[eclipsenow]

Well, speaking of most of the 4 Hiroshima bombs per second going into the oceans, check this out! Record temperatures threaten coral reefs for the second year in a row. Oh, but there's no evidence for global warming, not at all!

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=3053