|
Post by dmapel on Jun 2, 2009 1:14:25 GMT
icefisher: "Yep like the 6 million dollar man anthropogenic CO2 isn't normal CO2. Its like CO2 on steroids, when it back radiates these super photons bounce off the bottom of the ocean."
That's it. But before socold makes a stink, I have to remind you that the ocean bottom is pretty soft, so the CO2 back radiation super photons won't bounce much. Don't expect them to be bobbing up to the surface anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 2, 2009 1:34:26 GMT
Gosh you all. Ganging up on SoCold like that with insightful comments. I mean, if the cover on the pot is tight, and someone turns down the burner.......mmmmm......dang......that pot is going to cool no matter what you do with the lid.
AGW is garbage. Always has been, always will be. The evidence is in the lag of co2 after temperature rise. Ya see, co2 didn't cause the temperature to rise, co2 rose BECAUSE the temperature rose. Pure simple unadultrated physics at work. IT is called gas exchange................
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 2, 2009 11:43:28 GMT
dmapel, I don't understand why are you being so rude here? socold uses a pot-on-a-stove analogy, and then Roy Spencer uses the same analogy. Why do you think socold's "good buddy Roy" can explain to socold what socold clearly has grasped (unlike others here that I could name)? Roy's argument doesn't really directly address socold's point, except that he believes that the cloud changes cause the warming rather than the warming causes the cloud change. If he is right, then good. But he needs to do a bit more work to show that he is right. 7.5 years of data doesn't quite cut the mustard.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 2, 2009 17:24:00 GMT
Socold the "heat in the pipeline" people are talking about is the heat that has already been trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere, reflected back to earth and stored someplace beyond any place anybody has taken a thermometer in the past 6 years. Folks want to know where that heat is that is supposed to be there as predicted by the global heat loss deficit models. This isn't what heat in the pipeline means. If you turn on a stove under a pot of water, then that water will not reach boiling point immediately. There is heat in the pipeline though, because as long as the forcing from the stove is maintained the water has a large temperature increase ahead of it to reach equillibrium. It's useful to know what the phrases you attack actually mean...preferably before attacking them. Sorry Socold, and I will state again any heat generated by CO2 from future insolance is not by any common definition "in the pipeline". To use the probale origin of the statement it would refer to water being delivered to the end user, already extracted from the source and either literally in a pipe or stored somewhere like in a reservoir. It does not include estimates of future rainfall, water in natural running rivers and streams or snowpacks. Thus it is illogical to say that future insolance is heat in the pipeline. When stepping towards your pan analogy, the question at hand is where is the heat in the pipeline from energy already delivered from the burner to the pan. If the burner has been on consistently over the past 6 years where is the heat disappearing to, supposedly according your theory it should still be somewhere on the globe. Now I can accept an apology from you folks for trying to cover Hansen's butt for his stupid remarks but I am going to put out of bounds redefining English idioms to do that. Hope that answers your question too Steve.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 2, 2009 19:09:56 GMT
If the burner has been on consistently over the past 6 years where is the heat disappearing to, supposedly according your theory it should still be somewhere on the globe. Exactly...but in this horrible example the "burner" is supposedly the atmosphere yet the "pot" (oceans) turns out to be responsible for most of the last warming trend (warming PDO/AMO). I don't think they've thought this AGW thing through very well.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 2, 2009 20:50:50 GMT
This isn't what heat in the pipeline means. If you turn on a stove under a pot of water, then that water will not reach boiling point immediately. There is heat in the pipeline though, because as long as the forcing from the stove is maintained the water has a large temperature increase ahead of it to reach equillibrium. It's useful to know what the phrases you attack actually mean...preferably before attacking them. Sorry Socold, and I will state again any heat generated by CO2 from future insolance is not by any common definition "in the pipeline". Heat in the pipeline refers to the system being out of balance and to come back into balance it will warm. The pipeline refers to the inevitability of the system warming to the new equillibrium. This applies to the pot on a stove example. The pot of water has "heat in the pipeline", it is in imbalance with it's surroundings. The pipeline refers to an unpreventable (it's untouchable - in the "pipe") amount of warming even if we don't turn the stove up any higher (or increase greenhouse gases any further). To make the analogy more fitting I would say 60 seconds rather than 6 years, and we have a thermometer which can only measure the temperature at the bottom of the pan (nearer the heat source), but not the top. If we see that the water at the lower section of the pan hasn't heated up in 60 seconds there are four possibilities: 1) heat transfer from the bottom to the top of the water in the pan has been sufficient in that 60 seconds to remove as much heat as was gained from the deeper section 2) the thermometer is inaccurate 3) something is offsetting the heat input from the stove 4) the output from the stove is not as great as thought
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jun 2, 2009 20:59:39 GMT
Sorry Socold, and I will state again any heat generated by CO2 from future insolance is not by any common definition "in the pipeline". Heat in the pipeline refers to the system being out of balance and to come back into balance it will warm. The pipeline refers to the inevitability of the system warming to the new equillibrium. This applies to the pot on a stove example. The pot of water has "heat in the pipeline", it is in imbalance with it's surroundings. The pipeline refers to an unpreventable (it's untouchable - in the "pipe") amount of warming even if we don't turn the stove up any higher (or increase greenhouse gases any further). To make the analogy more fitting I would say 60 seconds rather than 6 years, and we have a thermometer which can only measure the temperature at the bottom of the pan (nearer the heat source), but not the top. If we see that the water at the lower section of the pan hasn't heated up in 60 seconds there are four possibilities: 1) heat transfer from the bottom to the top of the water in the pan has been sufficient in that 60 seconds to remove as much heat as was gained from the deeper section 2) the thermometer is inaccurate 3) something is offsetting the heat input from the stove 4) the output from the stove is not as great as thought 1) This explanation would not apply to GHG-warming, as it should be in the atmosphere where we can measure it, not coming up from the bottom of the oceans like the pan. 2) Possible...but then everything we've based the climate models on has assumed that the thermometers have been generally accurate over the past couple hundred years.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 2, 2009 21:01:28 GMT
If the burner has been on consistently over the past 6 years where is the heat disappearing to, supposedly according your theory it should still be somewhere on the globe. Exactly...but in this horrible example the "burner" is supposedly the atmosphere yet the "pot" (oceans) turns out to be responsible for most of the last warming trend (warming PDO/AMO). I don't think they've thought this AGW thing through very well. The AMO/PDO explaination is largely circular reasoning. Both are derived (AMO entirely, PDO partially) from sea surface temperature and as a consequence AMO/PDO explainations for global warming are using part of the global temperature record to explain the global temperature record which is at risk of a large flaw in reasoning. To demonstrate if this is a temperature trend of a pot of water over time: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/compress:20Then someone says "hey lets detrend this" and gets this: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/compress:20/detrend:0.8And they say "wow looks like there's a cycle in the data, lets call this the Pot of water oscillation (PWO)" Then along come people and get amazed at how temperature seems to climb when the PWO rises to a PWO "warm phase" and falls when PWO falls to it's "cool phase". Finally some people get the tail end of this and conclude that the temperature record itself can be explained by the phases of the PWO. www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/compress:20/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/compress:20/detrend:0.8/offset:0.4"recently we've been going through the positive phase of the PWO. This explains the warming in the temperature record during this time" It's complete circular reasoning, because the positive phase is precisely part of the warming in the temperature record in this case.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 2, 2009 21:14:58 GMT
Heat in the pipeline refers to the system being out of balance and to come back into balance it will warm. The pipeline refers to the inevitability of the system warming to the new equillibrium. This applies to the pot on a stove example. The pot of water has "heat in the pipeline", it is in imbalance with it's surroundings. The pipeline refers to an unpreventable (it's untouchable - in the "pipe") amount of warming even if we don't turn the stove up any higher (or increase greenhouse gases any further). To make the analogy more fitting I would say 60 seconds rather than 6 years, and we have a thermometer which can only measure the temperature at the bottom of the pan (nearer the heat source), but not the top. If we see that the water at the lower section of the pan hasn't heated up in 60 seconds there are four possibilities: 1) heat transfer from the bottom to the top of the water in the pan has been sufficient in that 60 seconds to remove as much heat as was gained from the deeper section 2) the thermometer is inaccurate 3) something is offsetting the heat input from the stove 4) the output from the stove is not as great as thought 1) This explanation would not apply to GHG-warming, as it should be in the atmosphere where we can measure it, not coming up from the bottom of the oceans like the pan. The analogy with that one is with transfer to the deep ocean, beneath the thermometers. The ocean heat content records have undergone quite a few revisions recently due to corrections. It seems more plausible that another big error will be found. This is in stark contrast to the surface and satellite records which for the most part have not undergone major revisions any time recently.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 2, 2009 22:05:57 GMT
Sorry Socold, and I will state again any heat generated by CO2 from future insolance is not by any common definition "in the pipeline". Heat in the pipeline refers to the system being out of balance and to come back into balance it will warm. The pipeline refers to the inevitability of the system warming to the new equillibrium. This applies to the pot on a stove example. The pot of water has "heat in the pipeline", it is in imbalance with it's surroundings. The pipeline refers to an unpreventable (it's untouchable - in the "pipe") amount of warming even if we don't turn the stove up any higher (or increase greenhouse gases any further). Sorry you are just wrong on all counts there. What is in the pipeline is what has already been diverted from its natural course, nothing more nothing less. You can say the system is out of balance and say its highly likely that that more energy will be entering the pipeline. . . .but thats only because it isn't likely anybody will turn the stove off. When stepping towards your pan analogy, the question at hand is where is the heat in the pipeline from energy already delivered from the burner to the pan. If the burner has been on consistently over the past 6 years where is the heat disappearing to, supposedly according your theory it should still be somewhere on the globe. To make the analogy more fitting I would say 60 seconds rather than 6 years, and we have a thermometer which can only measure the temperature at the bottom of the pan (nearer the heat source), but not the top. Since your analogy is upside down and the heat is coming from the bottom its not a very good analogy. And with convection water heated from the bottom is quickly going to rise to the top. In the case at hand the burner is on top of the pan and the thermometers are at the surface and also dive around in the pan to detect for currents pulling heat from the surface. The rest of your post just speculates on your upside down world and is really silly.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 2, 2009 22:09:23 GMT
socold: "The analogy with that one is with transfer to the deep ocean, beneath the thermometers...
The ocean heat content records have undergone quite a few revisions recently due to corrections. It seems more plausible that another big error will be found. This is in stark contrast to the surface and satellite records which for the most part have not undergone major revisions any time recently"
This and most of your previous attempts to explain or ignore the missing heat is nothing more than incoherent babbling.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 2, 2009 22:16:28 GMT
The analogy with that one is with transfer to the deep ocean, beneath the thermometers. Thats fine Socold but keep in mind you have no physical process by which to explain how this works (like sunspots). And worse than that unlike sunspots you have no history of observations here to even suspect such a physical process. So I think that puts in danger of being called something like a "science denier" or something like that. 2) Possible...but then everything we've based the climate models on has assumed that the thermometers have been generally accurate over the past couple hundred years. The ocean heat content records have undergone quite a few revisions recently due to corrections. It seems more plausible that another big error will be found. This is in stark contrast to the surface and satellite records which for the most part have not undergone major revisions any time recently. Errors have been corrected in all the measurement records we deal with Socold. Just last year we watched the GISS record get adjusted to increase the warming trend. We were regaled on many blogs with moving pictures of the humps humping and the slumps slumping. But bottom line as we sit now there is no reason to think that what is out there is not the best science available. You are merely hand waving here.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 2, 2009 22:20:29 GMT
steve: "dmapel, I don't understand why are you being so rude here? socold uses a pot-on-a-stove analogy, and then Roy Spencer uses the same analogy. Why do you think socold's "good buddy Roy" can explain to socold what socold clearly has grasped (unlike others here that I could name)?
Roy's argument doesn't really directly address socold's point, except that he believes that the cloud changes cause the warming rather than the warming causes the cloud change. If he is right, then good. But he needs to do a bit more work to show that he is right. 7.5 years of data doesn't quite cut the mustard."
Whatever. Why don't you help your pal socold and tell us where the missing heat is?
By the way, 7.5 years of data that actually supports the hypothesis is more than the catastrophic AGW crowd has to show for all it's efforts and $$BILLIONS$$ in funding. Do you have any more specific criticism of Dr. Spencer's work? Despite him being a Christian with odd views on evolution, I think he has this one nailed.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 3, 2009 1:23:58 GMT
<sigh>
I was expecting a suitably framed correction to my post pointing out SoCold's error in his pot-on-stove analogy which to my mind frames perfectly the flaw in the current AGW argument.
Both Steve and SoCold have avoided comment - I can only assume that they cannot see a way out of the logical argument and instead like to swap disparagements on other posters.
More exciting perhaps but less illuminating.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jun 3, 2009 3:39:07 GMT
1) This explanation would not apply to GHG-warming, as it should be in the atmosphere where we can measure it, not coming up from the bottom of the oceans like the pan. The analogy with that one is with transfer to the deep ocean, beneath the thermometers. The ocean heat content records have undergone quite a few revisions recently due to corrections. It seems more plausible that another big error will be found. This is in stark contrast to the surface and satellite records which for the most part have not undergone major revisions any time recently. 1. And how exactly is it proposed that the heat transfers, unnoticed to the deep oceans? 2. Right...I wasn't suggesting they need major revisions.
|
|