|
Post by steve on Jun 3, 2009 13:35:52 GMT
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. This just seems to be another attempt to disprove a theory by pointing out assumed errors in the layman's description of the theory. (cf "the science is settled", "the atmosphere is not the same as a greenhouse"). "In the pipeline" is a phrase I don't think I've ever used (I avoid idioms like the plague). What it means is that the earth is out of equilibrium. If the earth really has not warmed much since 2003 then that may be because the forcing from greenhouse gases is being balanced by some other aspect of the weather, or some other aspect of forcings (including solar, aerosol, dust, other ghg, etc). Now I would like to know exactly what this aspect of the weather etc. is, but the observational evidence (eg. of clouds) appears to be too short term and too limited to be quite sure of trends. However, we have had "flattish spots" in the past, and they came to an end. And we've had steep rises in the past and they came to an end. Since the current flattish spot was preceded by a steep rise, and since it doesn't seem to have seriously impacted the long term trend yet, it may be too early to say that it must continue. I suggest that there is some average set of conditions between the flattish spots and the steep rises that means that when we return to the average conditions the pipeline will start to flow extra heat to the earth again. www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/in+the+pipeline.htmlIf something's in the pipeline, it hasn't arrived yet but its arrival is expected.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 3, 2009 14:18:27 GMT
steve: "In the pipeline" is a phrase I don't think I've ever used (I avoid idioms like the plague). What it means is that the earth is out of equilibrium."
Doesn't "out of equilibrium" in the catastrophic AGW story-line mean that there is more heat coming in than going out? Where is the heat? I repeat: WHERE IS THE HEAT?
steve: "If the earth really has not warmed much since 2003 then that may be because the forcing from greenhouse gases is being balanced by some other aspect of the weather, or some other aspect of forcings (including solar, aerosol, dust, other ghg, etc)."
It also could mean that the forcings from GHG and other weather/climate factors are not being modeled correctly, and the warming that your crowd expected should not have been expected.
steve: "Now I would like to know exactly what this aspect of the weather etc. is, but the observational evidence (eg. of clouds) appears to be too short term and too limited to be quite sure of trends."
How long do you think it takes to figure out whether or not clouds block sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth, and whether increased water vapor in the atmosphere results in more cloud cover?
steve: "However, we have had "flattish spots" in the past, and they came to an end. And we've had steep rises in the past and they came to an end. Since the current flattish spot was preceded by a steep rise, and since it doesn't seem to have seriously impacted the long term trend yet, it may be too early to say that it must continue."
Thanks for admitting that the climate is ever changing, and unpredictable.
steve: "I suggest that there is some average set of conditions between the flattish spots and the steep rises that means that when we return to the average conditions the pipeline will start to flow extra heat to the earth again."
Are you capable of considering the possibility that we have been experiencing that average set of conditions over the last several years?
Just in case you have forgotten the question: WHERE'S THE HEAT?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 3, 2009 15:19:12 GMT
steve: "In the pipeline" is a phrase I don't think I've ever used (I avoid idioms like the plague). What it means is that the earth is out of equilibrium." Doesn't "out of equilibrium" in the catastrophic AGW story-line mean that there is more heat coming in than going out? Where is the heat? I repeat: WHERE IS THE HEAT? steve: "If the earth really has not warmed much since 2003 then that may be because the forcing from greenhouse gases is being balanced by some other aspect of the weather, or some other aspect of forcings (including solar, aerosol, dust, other ghg, etc)." It also could mean that the forcings from GHG and other weather/climate factors are not being modeled correctly, and the warming that your crowd expected should not have been expected. steve: "Now I would like to know exactly what this aspect of the weather etc. is, but the observational evidence (eg. of clouds) appears to be too short term and too limited to be quite sure of trends." How long do you think it takes to figure out whether or not clouds block sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth, and whether increased water vapor in the atmosphere results in more cloud cover? steve: "However, we have had "flattish spots" in the past, and they came to an end. And we've had steep rises in the past and they came to an end. Since the current flattish spot was preceded by a steep rise, and since it doesn't seem to have seriously impacted the long term trend yet, it may be too early to say that it must continue." Thanks for admitting that the climate is ever changing, and unpredictable. steve: "I suggest that there is some average set of conditions between the flattish spots and the steep rises that means that when we return to the average conditions the pipeline will start to flow extra heat to the earth again." Are you capable of considering the possibility that we have been experiencing that average set of conditions over the last several years? Just in case you have forgotten the question: WHERE'S THE HEAT? I like the occasional simple answers: "What it means is that the earth is out of equilibrium" What it means is that the Earth is IN equilibrium as temperatures are flat. This is probably due to _negative feedbacks_ as the heat coming in has stayed effectively the same (we are told) and the GHG have climbed higher. The only thing left is negative feedback. Or - <Gasp> GHG are not quite so GH as they are claimed? "I suggest that there is some average set of conditions between the flattish spots and the steep rises that means that when we return to the average conditions the pipeline will start to flow extra heat to the earth again."Is this the basic physics that SoCold tells us about? All that heat queuing up to come to the Earth as soon as it is let in?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 3, 2009 15:47:11 GMT
steve: "In the pipeline" is a phrase I don't think I've ever used (I avoid idioms like the plague). What it means is that the earth is out of equilibrium." Doesn't "out of equilibrium" in the catastrophic AGW story-line mean that there is more heat coming in than going out? Where is the heat? I repeat: WHERE IS THE HEAT? The answer is in the rest of the post. Yes it could. That's why I said "may". Again, I consider this in my next paragraph. Longer than we have. But it's not as straightforward as you put it. Some clouds block sunlight reaching the earth. Others let most of the light right through and block the heat from escaping. Obviously at night, clouds don't block any sunlight, but do block heat...except in the arctic where there ain't much heat or light to block. We don't have detailed knowledge of all these cloud types over a long enough period to give a good statistical understanding. Thanks for admitting that you think that admitting that the climate is ever changing, and unpredictable is an admission Yes. I considered it in the post that you have just commented on. Are you capabable of considering the possibility that we have *not* been experiencing an average set of conditions? I did answer this. If we have *not* been experiencing "average" conditions over the last 4-5 years, then it is reasonable to assume that "average" conditions will return (reversion to mean blah blah). The average conditions will reflect away less sunlight and/or "trap" more infrared than the recent conditions, so allowing the net flow of heat into the earth system to return at its previous average rate. If we *have* recently been experiencing "average conditions", then the current lack of observed ocean warming is evidence that the ocean comes to equilibrium more quickly than previously though, and that the previous periods were the anomalous ones for similar reasons to what I've stated. The reason why I don't believe this to be the case is that it doesn't square with evidence of previous warming episodes, what we (think we) know about the atmosphere and oceans, and with my desire to shut down western capitalism (darn - it slipped out).
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 3, 2009 15:50:27 GMT
This is probably due to _negative feedbacks_ as the heat coming in has stayed effectively the same (we are told) and the GHG have climbed higher. The only thing left is negative feedback. Or - <Gasp> GHG are not quite so GH as they are claimed? "I suggest that there is some average set of conditions between the flattish spots and the steep rises that means that when we return to the average conditions the pipeline will start to flow extra heat to the earth again."Is this the basic physics that SoCold tells us about? All that heat queuing up to come to the Earth as soon as it is let in? Nautonnier, if you think you can cope with bigger words, let me know
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 3, 2009 15:58:12 GMT
steve: "I suggest that there is some average set of conditions between the flattish spots and the steep rises that means that when we return to the average conditions the pipeline will start to flow extra heat to the earth again."
nautonnier: "Is this the basic physics that SoCold tells us about? All that heat queuing up to come to the Earth as soon as it is let in?"
Yes, I think that is what they have been trying to get through our thick skulls. Why didn't we see it? Conditions have not been average enough for the heat in the pipeline to get out. Now there is a big bulge in the heat pipe, and as soon as things get back to normal, all that heat will squirt out on us. I am really getting frightened. I can't look at a pot of water heating up on the stove without getting weak in the knees. Help! We are all going to die!
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 3, 2009 16:02:28 GMT
steve,
You can't explain where the heat is because it ain't there. Get over it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 3, 2009 17:08:46 GMT
steve, You can't explain where the heat is because it ain't there. Get over it. I think you are pretending not to understand. If you are cold, and you put a thick pullover on, then "heat is in the pipeline" to your body. If someone opens the door and lets in a cold draught, then you might stop warming up. If they close the door you might start warming up again. It sounds a bit stupid when you put it like that, and pedantics will criticise it by claiming that it invents a perpetuum mobile of the second kind etc. etc. Most people though get the picture when Hansen uses the phrase to summarise the basic description of the fact that, even if emissions are cut such that CO2 levels stop changing, the earth will likely continue to warm for a few more decades.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 3, 2009 18:53:50 GMT
steve: "I think you are pretending not to understand."
That is a stupid and rude accusation. Why would I pretend not to understand?
steve: "If you are cold, and you put a thick pullover on, then "heat is in the pipeline" to your body. If someone opens the door and lets in a cold draught, then you might stop warming up. If they close the door you might start warming up again. It sounds a bit stupid when you put it like that, and pedantics will criticise it by claiming that it invents a perpetuum mobile of the second kind etc. etc."
Where do you people get these faulty/in-appropriate analogies? If your body did not generate it's own heat internally, you would be about as hot as the ambient temperature, and you would be dead (even if you were wearing a thick pullover). Where does the "heat is in the pipeline" to your body nonsense come from? And are you equating adding a few hundred parts per million of a trace gas to the atmosphere with putting on a thick pullover? It does sound stupid steve, even without resorting to pedantics.
steve: "Most people though get the picture when Hansen uses the phrase to summarise the basic description of the fact that, even if emissions are cut such that CO2 levels stop changing, the earth will likely continue to warm for a few more decades.
Most people don't get Hansen's BS steve, or we wouldn't still be waiting for the World to come up with some half-baked scheme to stop it.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jun 3, 2009 18:55:39 GMT
steve, You can't explain where the heat is because it ain't there. Get over it. I think you are pretending not to understand. If you are cold, and you put a thick pullover on, then "heat is in the pipeline" to your body. If someone opens the door and lets in a cold draught, then you might stop warming up. If they close the door you might start warming up again. It sounds a bit stupid when you put it like that, and pedantics will criticise it by claiming that it invents a perpetuum mobile of the second kind etc. etc. Most people though get the picture when Hansen uses the phrase to summarise the basic description of the fact that, even if emissions are cut such that CO2 levels stop changing, the earth will likely continue to warm for a few more decades. The problem, Steve, is that CO2 has been increasing fast enough over the past 100 years that heat that was already in the pipeline should be showing itself. Were this to happen, we would begin to see an increase in warming. This has yet to occur. What kind of lag would you expect from pipe dream...er, pipe line, to reality? More than 50 years?
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 3, 2009 19:04:45 GMT
tacoman: "The problem, Steve, is that CO2 has been increasing fast enough over the past 100 years that heat that was already in the pipeline should be showing itself. Were this to happen, we would begin to see an increase in warming. This has yet to occur.
What kind of lag would you expect from pipe dream...er, pipe line, to reality? More than 50 years?"
Methinks that you may be pretending not to understand. If you are cold and you put on a thick pullover, the "heat is in the pipeline" to your body. (If you are Australian, then substitute thick jumper, if that helps you get it.) Now of course you understand that the heating of your body will not be instantaneous. We know this from the pot on the stove analogy, right. Well, it's going to take a few weeks for your body to reach a new equilibrium. Until then, you will still be freezing your ass off. Now doesn't that scare the crap out of you?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 3, 2009 20:47:51 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). 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. The pipeline refers to warming warming from the current forcing that hasn't yet been realized. If the total forcing will cause 10C warming, but due to the lag in temperature response the warming so far is only 6C, then there is another 4C in the pipeline. That is without changing the forcing at all you will get another 4C warming. 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.[/QUOTE] The relevant analogy is that the thermometer is unable to measure the whole vertical profile of the water. Just like our measurements of OHC are unable to measure the whole vertical profile of the ocean. We are only getting part of the top.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 3, 2009 20:49:10 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. If you don't understand it I can always use smaller words.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 3, 2009 20:54:42 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. The difference is sunspots are cited as a mechanism for causing warming of the earth without a physical basis. I am not citing a mechanism for cooling of the upper ocean, only that it could have happened. The records do show OHC falling or going flat in the past 30 years of overall warming, and if the records are correct this therefore suggests that at those times heat was either transferred upwards into the atmosphere or deeper into the ocean. None like ocean heat content records though. There is a lot of disagreement between different records let alone different revisions.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 3, 2009 22:53:04 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. If you don't understand it I can always use smaller words. "The pipeline refers to warming warming from the current forcing that hasn't yet been realized. If the total forcing will cause 10C warming, but due to the lag in temperature response the warming so far is only 6C, then there is another 4C in the pipeline. That is without changing the forcing at all you will get another 4C warming."A lag could be seen if the warming had only just started but that is not the case. What has happened is that there has been a continual slow rise in global heat content since the end of the 1980's with a peak in 1998 then a topping off at 2003 then the rise stopped for 4 years and then dropped. This CANNOT be a lag as the heat content was increasing and HAS NOW STOPPED then DROPPED. The only way this can happen is to use Steve's analogy - someone opened a door and there was a cold draught. Now WHERE is there such a sudden drop in heat 'due to a cold draught' for the Earth? The input heat you claim is approximately constant therefore the only way that there can be a drop is a sudden exit at higher than normal rate - but the CO 2 levels have been rising continually so YOU cannot admit that can happen - the only other way is a negative feedback of some sort - perhaps greatly increased albedo or _gasp_ something else transporting heat past most of the GHG. You cannot admit to these aspects as that would be the end of the AGW disaster predictions. "If you don't understand it I can always use smaller words"It would appear that you and Steve are colluding on your ad-hominem responses.
|
|