|
Post by icefisher on Jun 6, 2009 14:59:56 GMT
The analogy with that one is with transfer to the deep ocean, beneath the thermometers. Still waiting for the mechanism here Socold!!! You wouldn't want to get labeled like some solar freak claiming the sun has been causing recent warming without a scientific-based physical argument now would you? Warm water is lighter than cold water. Thermoclines in the ocean are quite stable as a result. Deep ocean mixing according to most including Hansen is a very slow process. . . .a millenium didn't Hansen say? Gee thats long enough of a period for the Little Ice Age recovery to still be working itself out!!!
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 6, 2009 15:37:03 GMT
You are not doing well at holding up the warmista side of the argument here steve. When you duck and dodge and fail to coherently and logically address the issues, it ain't good for your team. I am just a rookie second-stringer here and you can't get a hit off me. It seems the first-stringers here just find you amusing. You keep striking out steve. You have either ignored, or failed to adequately address all of my questions:
Where did you come up with “for periods of up to a decade or so”?
How do you account for ice ages that occurred when CO2 was present in the atmosphere in much higher concentrations than it is now?
Didn’t the cooling period that set off a mini-panic last longer than your favored “steep rises”? Maybe your average conditions favor ice ages and it is irrational to panic at the sight of a little warming.
The bulk of the 120 ppm increase in CO2 has been added since 1945. It has not warmed as much in that period as expected by the AGW theory, and particularly the hysterical catastrophic AGW theory. WHERE’S THE HEAT?
It wasn’t that there “appeared to be cooling at the time” there was cooling at the time. It was pretty damn cold. Do you deny that?
Didn’t the cooling period that set off a mini-panic last longer than your favored “steep rises”? Maybe your average conditions favor ice ages and it is irrational to panic at the sight of a little warming.
I find your method of ducking-and-dodging discourse to be very annoying. And I suspect I am not alone. Why don't you can the complaining, the psycho babble, the goofy analogies, and directly address the issues under discussion. Maybe you can start to redeem yourself by telling us where the missing heat is. A reasonable attempt at an explanation that doesn't include a phantom pipeline, might avoid being met with sarcasm.
Steve, maybe you would be better off spending your time on a board that is populated mostly by your fellow warmista choir members. You know, where the Settled Science Holy Consensus Majority heaps scorn and ridicule on the deniers, while they congratulate one another on how smart and morally superior they are.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 6, 2009 15:51:24 GMT
icefisher:"Still waiting for the mechanism here Socold!!!
You wouldn't want to get labeled like some solar freak claiming the sun has been causing recent warming without a scientific-based physical argument now would you?..."
soclod, is still scouring surrealclimate and other warmista sites looking for the canned talking points to respond to your query.
Some of these guys here remind me of a radio show I heard a few years back that sent out a "science" reporter to ask questions of the man in the street:
reporter: Our question for today is: What has been the most amazing invention in history?
He got various answers like the automobile, airplanes, atomic power, the transistor, etc. with the various explanations on the impact and importance of the inventions.
Then a gentleman responded that he thought the most amazing invention in history was the thermos bottle. The reporter seemed a little surprised by that answer, as he asked the man to explain why he chose the thermos bottle, out of all man's inventions, as the most amazing.
the man: Well, in the summer it keep cold things cold, and in the winter it keep hot things hot.
reporter: What is so amazing about that?
the man: How do it know?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 6, 2009 16:00:37 GMT
The analogy with that one is with transfer to the deep ocean, beneath the thermometers. Still waiting for the mechanism here Socold!!! You wouldn't want to get labeled like some solar freak claiming the sun has been causing recent warming without a scientific-based physical argument now would you? Warm water is lighter than cold water. Thermoclines in the ocean are quite stable as a result. Deep ocean mixing according to most including Hansen is a very slow process. . . .a millenium didn't Hansen say? Gee thats long enough of a period for the Little Ice Age recovery to still be working itself out!!! Can you provide any reference for this idea that deep ocean mixing is too slow to explain this magnitude of OHC flatness? I assume you are saying the science is settled that heat transfer to the lower ocean (and by extension from the lower ocean is too slow to impact (upper)OHC?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 6, 2009 16:16:06 GMT
You are not doing well at holding up the warmista side of the argument here steve. When you duck and dodge and fail to coherently and logically address the issues, it ain't good for your team. I am just a rookie second-stringer here and you can't get a hit off me. It seems the first-stringers here just find you amusing. You keep striking out steve. You have either ignored, or failed to adequately address all of my questions: Where did you come up with “for periods of up to a decade or so”? Individual model runs show flat periods. For example I have downloaded individual model runs under the A1B scenario and they do contain flat periods, (in fact in some cases longer than 10 years). In any case it is somewhat irrelevant whether the models capture decadal trends seeing as noone expects them to be accurate on decadal timescales anyway and I have noticed a large difference in variation between the models on this timescale. It's a bit like having a pot of water on a stove and having a model that can project the temperature of the water over time. I would be confident that such a model would accurately predict the temperature trend of the water over an hour time period. But I would not be confident that model would be accurate at providing heat variation within any 60 second period of time. Albedo can overwhelm the co2 forcing. If your ice age involved an Earth covered almost entirely in ice (and I dare say it does) then the albedo forcing would subtract from the warming from the co2, perhaps masking it completely. In fact one of the mechanisms to escape from a snowball earth is a steady increase in co2 eventually breaking the ice locked state. On geological timescales I think it's albedo which causes the significant fluctuations. Orbital forcings are too small, although thy are perhaps the initiators. Continental drift also affects things significantly, for example if there was no land mass at the south pole there would be no antarctica in the current world. The presence of that land mass has a large effect of the local climate there. Back to your question: On timescales of millions of years there are bigger scale phenomenon than co2. co2 will pull it's punches, it just isn't alone. On short timescales, like say the 21st century, we see co2 shooting up fast enough to dominate. Orbital forcing and continental drift cannot compete at such short timescales. It has warmed as much as expected. It's notable enough that it did indeed warm. Perhaps you can quibble over as much as 10%, but by anyones check that is a good forecast. Perhaps lucky, perhaps skillful. This is getting old now. It's reminding me of creationists demanding we tell them where the missing transitional fossils are. In both cases the answer is the same: we don't know, there are possibilities. It's not the case that this problem falsifies the theory. Yet. But no doubt like the creationists you will just ignore this and keep hammering "where is the missing heat?" over and over.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 6, 2009 16:30:56 GMT
Blah, blah, blah. Same old canned spam.
I am an atheist, so that anti-Christian smear crap won't work on me. We are not talking about Creationism here. Get on topic.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 6, 2009 16:34:02 GMT
Blah, blah, blah. Same old canned spam. I am an atheist, so that anti-Christian smear crap won't work on me. We are not talking about Creationism here. Get on topic. I think it will work all the more if you recognize the flaw with the "where are the missing transitionals" argument. The AGW-skepticism/creationism analogies only fail against people who are both AGW skeptics and creationists. In which cases I am told that AGW is as flawed as evolutionism.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 6, 2009 16:48:25 GMT
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense and it is highly relevant. Just like finding a few flat spots in a multitude of model runs. Can you give us a specific time when rising CO2 ended an ice age? Can you furnish any proof that the warming over the last 200 years has been caused by anthropogenic GHG? I haven't seen it.
Do you find anything in the hysterical catastrophic AGW theory to take issue with?
Do you have any criticisms of Al Gore's Academy Award winning film, that attempts to scare the World into spending $$TRILLIONS$$?
Or are you a hypocrite?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 6, 2009 20:47:55 GMT
Blah, blah, blah. Same old canned spam. I am an atheist, so that anti-Christian smear crap won't work on me. We are not talking about Creationism here. Get on topic. I think it will work all the more if you recognize the flaw with the "where are the missing transitionals" argument. The AGW-skepticism/creationism analogies only fail against people who are both AGW skeptics and creationists. In which cases I am told that AGW is as flawed as evolutionism. You have missed the key issue in how AGW differs from evolution. If Darwin had gone into a lab and noted DNA and opined that DNA could chaotically mutate to create a short billed Finch ideally suited for certain forage. . . .evolution theory if that is all it was ever comprised of would not be far down the road if that Finch had never been found. Fact is Socold even today people can not predict what will evolve from the theory of evolution. . . .they just know that maybe something will and maybe not. AGW presupposes what it will be. Going a step further and noting we have had iceages with much higher CO2 and no physical explanation for that and where CO2 increases accompanied warming it followed the warming and didn't lead it.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 7, 2009 0:55:42 GMT
icefisher: "Going a step further and noting we have had iceages with much higher CO2 and no physical explanation for that and where CO2 increases accompanied warming it followed the warming and didn't lead it."
Mere facts. The warmistas are impervious to facts, like a duck's back is to water.
Ask them where the missing heat is, and they say, "We doesn't has to show you no stinking heat." The heat wasn't really expected, so it ain't missing.
The inventors of the hysterical catastrophic AGW theory have been warning us for decades that we were about to become toast, but they never really expected it to be any warmer now than it was thirty years ago. Hey, a couple of individual runs out of a multitude of runs for dozens of their "models" show 10 year flat SPOTS. String three of them flat SPOTS together and you got 30 years. It's in the pipeline. And when it comes out, you'll be sorry.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 7, 2009 3:43:28 GMT
Going a step further and noting we have had iceages with much higher CO2 and no physical explanation for that Higher albedo. There you go there's a physical explaination for it. You said it yourself, the CO2 increases accompanied warming . That means that temperatures rose as co2 rose. There would only be an inconsistancy if co2 rose and temperature did not.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 7, 2009 3:46:29 GMT
Ask them where the missing heat is, and they say, "We doesn't has to show you no stinking heat." The heat wasn't really expected, so it ain't missing. That isn't actually anything like my response.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 7, 2009 13:30:01 GMT
icefisher: "Going a step further and noting we have had iceages with much higher CO2 and no physical explanation for that"
soclod: "Higher albedo. There you go there's a physical explaination for it."
Flippant non-responsive, and you need to learn how to spell explanation.
icefisher: "and where CO2 increases accompanied warming it followed the warming and didn't lead it."
soclod: "You said it yourself, the CO2 increases accompanied warming . That means that temperatures rose as co2 rose. There would only be an inconsistancy if co2 rose and temperature did not."
Dishonest mis-characterization. CO2 accompanied warming like a caboose on a train.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 7, 2009 13:38:50 GMT
I said: "Ask them where the missing heat is, and they say, "We doesn't has to show you no stinking heat." The heat wasn't really expected, so it ain't missing."
soclod: "That isn't actually anything like my response."
It's called literary license, or creative paraphrasing. And it is actually what you meant to say.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 7, 2009 14:03:31 GMT
You are not doing well at holding up the warmista side of the argument here steve. When you duck and dodge and fail to coherently and logically address the issues, it ain't good for your team. I am just a rookie second-stringer here and you can't get a hit off me. It seems the first-stringers here just find you amusing. You keep striking out steve. You have either ignored, or failed to adequately address all of my questions: I look forward to your reflection of the difference between missing heat and unrealised warming as I continue to read this rather long post. If it isn't there, then the reason I didn't bowl you out (I prefer cricket to baseball) is because you stayed in the dressing room. Why did you latch onto this? It's not important. Have a look at HadCRUT3 1850-1910. The period 1860-1870 warmed by about 0.15 (eyeballing the plot). 1895-1905 cooled quite a lot. The long term trend though was about zero. So does a 10-year trend of zero therefore "falsify" a long term trend of 0.15C? If you say "no" then you're out leg before wicket. Which one? The one I'm thinking of, the sun was sending about 20 Watts per metre squared less energy - this would need to be balanced by a CO2 rise of about 11000 ppm. Obviously, albedo would be different because of the ice. Prior to the ice, the albedo would be different because the earth had little plant life. And the continents were in a different place. That's a stumping. See above plot. It cooled between 1945 and (probably) 1960. Not too sure as there was a problem with the change in the way sea surface temperature was measured post-war. Since 1960 it has been mostly warming. I've already told you that, so lets call it a self-inflicted wound, and say you're out "hit wicket" for this one. It warmed less than the predictions of the 1980s. The difference can be accounted for either because the aerosols were underestimated or the sensitivity of the climate is overestimated. The projections now are 1.5-4.5C rather than the previous range of 2-6C using the same set of economic scenarios. That's a run-out. This appears to be a question about personal experience. Climate of the United States has been different from climate of the UK, so our answers won't align. My parents talk about 1947 and digging frozen coal heaps in 1963. For me the 70's were definitely colder than the 80s-now. But nothing sounds as bad as 1947 and 1963 (my parents experienced 1947 and 1963 in the south, I, and they, experienced the 1970's in an unheated northern house, so you can't put this down to better heating/insulation). I find your method of ducking and diving by failing to reflect back the discussion and failing to answer *my* questions annoying. You have said "where's the heat" a lot - well most of it seems to be between your ears, so now I've given you an answer we can move on. Retired hurt. Ha ha! That would be far too dull. Maybe you would be better off in an echo chamber. That's 10 wickets down for a rather pitiful score, and you still don't seem to understand the difference between unrealised warming and missing heat vs "missing heat in the pipeline" which noone except sceptics talks about. Snooker anyone?
|
|