|
|
Post by steve on Apr 13, 2011 17:52:49 GMT
magellan I am not going to pigeonhole you with any scientists I disagree with so why is it valid for you to try and divert the conversation by trying to pigeonhole me with people *you* disagree with. Do you think the "second law" argument has eagle wings, or are you in the same pigeon loft as Gerlich and Tscheuwotsisname? As it happens when I paint freshly plastered walls, I'm not happy till the 4th coat goes on, so I would say the 4th coat is still significant. Where this discussion came from, I don't know  |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 13, 2011 20:51:59 GMT
astromet It is perhaps better to say that the addition of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reduces the rate of cooling of the earth. This reduction in the rate of radiative cooling has been measured by satellites (eg. "Brindley, H. E., J. E. Harries, 2003: Observations of the Infrared Outgoing Spectrum of the Earth from Space: The Effects of Temporal and Spatial Sampling. J. Climate, 16, 3820–3833") If the earth's surface receives a roughly constant amount of solar radiation, reducing the rate of cooling causes energy to build up in the earth which must mean some part of the earth warms. The same logic (though not the same physical processes) applies to putting an extra blanket on your bed or putting double-glazed windows on a house. The additional layer of CO2/blanket/glass-air reduces the rate of loss of heat from a consistent heating source (the sun/your body/your heating system). When the earth/your bed/your house has warmed by a bit, the heat differential increases which increases the amount of convection, conduction and/or radiation and no more warming occurs. The inside of your bed does not raise its own temperature, it warms because less of your body heat is getting through the blankets. The room does not raise its own temperature, it warms because less of its heat is being radiated/conducted through the window. The earth does not raise its own temperature, it warms because less of the sun's heat is "escaping" to space. None of these examples counter the laws of thermodynamics. Steve, no matter how you frame it, the point is that it is impossible for the Earth to become a greenhouse. None of the computer-predictive models used to try to prove this has any basis in reality whatsoever. Moreover, these same supercomputers, paid for with tens of millions in grants are not able to help climatologists forecast seasonal weather, much less the long-range climate. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 13, 2011 21:15:54 GMT
The earth isn't a greenhouse. "greenhouse" is an analogy.
The second law of thermodynamics does not prevent the additional of a cooler body A from slowing the cooling rate of a hotter body B if they are both within a very cold environment C.
For A, B, C you can replace
More co2 in atmosphere, earth's surface, space.
Extra blanket, body, bedroom.
Replacement double-glazing unit, inside, outside.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Apr 13, 2011 23:09:43 GMT
The earth isn't a greenhouse. "greenhouse" is an analogy. The second law of thermodynamics does not prevent the additional of a cooler body A from slowing the cooling rate of a hotter body B if they are both within a very cold environment C. For A, B, C you can replace More co2 in atmosphere, earth's surface, space. Extra blanket, body, bedroom. Replacement double-glazing unit, inside, outside. Which raises the question of who has ever roasted under a blanket? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 14, 2011 9:29:41 GMT
Roasting is not guaranteed. You will reasonably expect to get warmer. I was ahead of you on this when I wrote:
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 15, 2011 11:16:52 GMT
Joe Bastardi's musings at weatherbell.com are, for the time being, freebies. He notes that one model which accurately predicted the La Nina of 2010-11 foresees a continuation of same into 2012: www.weatherbell.com/jb/?p=1101 |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 15, 2011 12:22:11 GMT
Joe Bastardi's musings at weatherbell.com are, for the time being, freebies. He notes that one model which accurately predicted the La Nina of 2010-11 foresees a continuation of same into 2012: www.weatherbell.com/jb/?p=1101A back-to-back or multi-year La Nina is possible. The last one was in 1998-2001, but that didn't stop the last decade being the warmest on record (any record). Even during this La Nina UAH temperatures are only just dipping below the 1981-2010 average. They are at a similar level as those during the 1986/87 EL NINO. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 15, 2011 13:27:39 GMT
Joe Bastardi's musings at weatherbell.com are, for the time being, freebies. He notes that one model which accurately predicted the La Nina of 2010-11 foresees a continuation of same into 2012: www.weatherbell.com/jb/?p=1101A back-to-back or multi-year La Nina is possible. The last one was in 1998-2001, but that didn't stop the last decade being the warmest on record (any record). Even during this La Nina UAH temperatures are only just dipping below the 1981-2010 average. They are at a similar level as those during the 1986/87 EL NINO. A. We're talking about half a degree Celsius here. If the weatherman in your part of England had forecast yesterday to be half a degree cooler than what you got, would you have noticed? If you're arguing that the climate system hasn't produced upswings and downswings of a degree Celsius during the entire Holocene, then you're on a slippery slope. B. Has this "unprecedented" warming yielded an identifiable increase in OHC as measured by ARGO? C. As for the sea surface temperature, go here: discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/click "sea surface," select all years, click "redraw." Then explain the co2-forced warming that you "see." |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 15, 2011 17:36:01 GMT
A. We're talking about half a degree Celsius here. If the weatherman in your part of England had forecast yesterday to be half a degree cooler than what you got, would you have noticed? No I wouldn't but then temperatures in my part of England (and I guess where you live) are highly variable. At the global level temperatures don't vary to anything like the same degree. B. Has this "unprecedented" warming yielded an identifiable increase in OHC as measured by ARGO?Not yet - as far as we know, but it's early days. It's possible that more heat was being released from the oceans during the El Nino dominated years in the early part of the 21st century. It'll be interesting to see whether more heat is being absorbed in the more recent La Nina period. C. As for the sea surface temperature, go here: discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/See response to B.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 16, 2011 12:36:56 GMT
A. We're talking about half a degree Celsius here. If the weatherman in your part of England had forecast yesterday to be half a degree cooler than what you got, would you have noticed? No I wouldn't but then temperatures in my part of England (and I guess where you live) are highly variable. At the global level temperatures don't vary to anything like the same degree. B. Has this "unprecedented" warming yielded an identifiable increase in OHC as measured by ARGO?Not yet - as far as we know, but it's early days. It's possible that more heat was being released from the oceans during the El Nino dominated years in the early part of the 21st century. It'll be interesting to see whether more heat is being absorbed in the more recent La Nina period. C. As for the sea surface temperature, go here: discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/See response to B. It's early days for climate science, period. I remain curious about where ENSO is going. The SOI for the last 19 days has averaged 33.5.  |
|
|
|
Post by norpag on Apr 16, 2011 22:38:47 GMT
There is a good empirical correlation between the current SOI and AMSU temps 7 months into the future. Looks like global cooling will continue thru November at least with possible early freezes and snow in the NH.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 17, 2011 1:29:52 GMT
There is a good empirical correlation between the current SOI and AMSU temps 7 months into the future. Looks like global cooling will continue thru November at least with possible early freezes and snow in the NH. According to the farm news, North America is more snow covered on this date than at any time since 1956. Not sure that we will have to wait for that early freeze...we are still waiting for spring! |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 17, 2011 2:03:13 GMT
The earth isn't a greenhouse. "greenhouse" is an analogy. The second law of thermodynamics does not prevent the additional of a cooler body A from slowing the cooling rate of a hotter body B if they are both within a very cold environment C. For A, B, C you can replace More co2 in atmosphere, earth's surface, space. Extra blanket, body, bedroom. Replacement double-glazing unit, inside, outside. Which raises the question of who has ever roasted under a blanket? Hunterson, "Which raises the question of who has ever roasted under a blanket?" I, for one, routinely shed such blankets when I become too warm. I would never tolerate the blanket roasting me! |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 18, 2011 4:24:18 GMT
There is a good empirical correlation between the current SOI and AMSU temps 7 months into the future. Looks like global cooling will continue thru November at least with possible early freezes and snow in the NH. According to the farm news, North America is more snow covered on this date than at any time since 1956. Not sure that we will have to wait for that early freeze...we are still waiting for spring! According to GISS, you were toasty warm in March. In fact, the whole country was. Stop believing your eyes and get with the program! |
|
|
|
Post by handyman on Apr 18, 2011 16:28:01 GMT
According to GISS, you were toasty warm in March. In fact, the whole country was. Stop believing your eyes and get with the program! Don't know about GISS, but I am beginning to think the ground-based temperature monitoring stations are all solar powered. They only record the temps when the sun is out. That would explain the bad data. |
|
