FYI, I’m not reading most of these long posts lately. Use the @ sign of you want my attention. Or, just take a break, so Tim doesn’t have anything to respond to
I see that .png link did not render. Here is the .html version:
We happen to be in an el nino year.
" This vast size means that warming or cooling in the Pacific due to El Niño and La Niña can leave an imprint on the global average surface temperature. In general, the warmest year of any decade will be an El Niño year , the coldest a La Niña one." - El Niño and La Niña: Frequently asked questions | NOAA Climate.gov.
but there is no hard rule there. Ah-Waw:
“There is considerable scatter of the data before 1850 when relatively few stations existed. The temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere continents exhibit greater year to year variability than is the
case for the Southern Hemisphere continents. This is not altogether
surprising given that Asia, Europe and North America have an approximately 50% greater area and the climate ranges from the polar
to the tropical. Many of the stations in the southern continents are located near the coast where the oceans moderate the climate. All three
northern continents exhibit a warming of about 0.5 C from 1850 to
the 1940s. This was followed by a cooler period during the 1960s and
1970s. In contrast, temperatures remained relatively constant in the
southern hemisphere. All continents show a marked increase in temperature of about 1 C during the 1990s followed by a levelling off after 2000 which is known as the global warming hiatus.”
So there it is in the words of WAW: your hiatus that you wanted to study. I didn’t mean to pick up the subject until you brought it to my attention. And now in the midst of my response you change topic over to model accuracy, and link to reports with titles like:
“Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right”
This is practically a leaker here. No doubt he’s had a visit from the OAS or some such; promised a free lunch and a boot. Nope; Alan Buis: a communications guy… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ055F_1-Dw
Still, even he must have had a chuckle when he came up with that title.
If I was just here to get your ire, which it seems I do virtually every post, I could stick it to you way worse. I’m actually quite interested in the 2016 peak, which nobody will discuss. It happens to be at approximately +1.0 C, and if somebodies model settled on that figure, then they are no doubt jumping out of their seats for the next year’s data, feeling as though they are sitting on a pot of gold. Meanwhile the market says +1.5 is on the way. As to who gets sneered off the stage, or scrooged on funding, well: this is a political problem now that the climate change infrastructure is established. You’ll find politics inside of even a small college institution in one department. This thing is considerably larger. The idea that the truth might be found outside of that bubble: I find it very believable.
Beyond this hiatus topic, I have been having trouble exposing what the term ‘amplification’ entails.
My opinion is that if WAW is wrong, it is because he completely ate the heat of the OCO notch as if it could not escape again. This likewise is mimiced by Schmidt: “If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2” But you see, this has to be a false statement: if you absorbed all of the heat already in your simplified model, there is no more to absorb. The problem really is better exposed by back out of this hole, and admitting that the spectral absorption is crude, and that some of that heat will be escaping, and that mechanism needs to be modeled. In effect the net model will be yielding a cooler prediction… +1.0C?
The idea that we will hit negative feedback given water and cloud formations is not only desirable, but believable.
Here in this discussion I find that you act like big brother, and yet still have the need to go crying to the babysitter. On top of this little brother has something to say which is getting stifled. I wonder how this is going to work out. Something about status quo power really stinks.
No, it’s not believable - it is fantasy thinking .
Gibberish isn’t helping.
This is where we’re at.
He’s tad long winded with his intro, but what cha gonna do:
Oh but wait, there’s more hot and dry isn’t all that’s bad, hot and wet isn’t the best either.
Oh yeah, we can only thrive within a limited range of conditions, and we are pushing Earth out that range and theirs no easy reverse gear,. especially when most still don’t even understand the simple fundamentals because they’re too busy wrestling with details beyond one’s intellectual abilities.
Unnecessary clause. Both of you, cut it out. Type, then delete. It’s that easy.
Oh look, another, from the guy who keeps asking me moderate others.
Have you seen that CC actually wants you here? It’s an opportunity to present alternate viewpoints. Didn’t you say you were banned from some other sites?
These don’t help. Watch that video on debating and use more technical terms to point out debate tactics.
See bookmark 54 about bad actors Discussion about fact based discussion - #5 by lausten
One of the tools is to stop the debate and reset to the conversation we want here. I have those tools. I’m thinking about 3 months to cool off.
I want to apologize for crapping on this thread, whose focus really is the hydrological cycle.
How troubling to those growing crops to know that irrigation systems have emptied aquifers. The best hopes for these places is rainfall. That we may find in the warming such a possibility is too optimistic, perhaps. I am finding that my issues with understanding the system is more to do with thermodynamics:
“In summary heat transport by thermal radiation in Earth’s atmosphere is orders of
magnitude faster than heat transfer by molecular diffusion. Heat transfer by conduction in
air (that is, by molecular diffusion) is so small that it is normally irrelevant compared to
heat transfer by radiation or heat transport by convection.” https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2023/03/GreenhousePrimerArxiv.pdf?x45936
and so it deserves its own thread.
The possibility that absorption by CO2 is saturated seems to be an issue that is tabboo for some. Still others tack on models atop this assumption, as if they are going to get more heat back, which is an extremely peculiar and unlikely analysis for someone who understands the topic at hand. Of course the possibility of my own misunderstanding is present here and again I apologize for my own density.
It’s not about taboo, it’s scientifically discredited.
No. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause surface temperatures to continue to increase. As the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase, the addition of extra CO2 becomes progressively less effective at trapping Earth’s energy, but surface temperature will still rise.
Our understanding of the physics by which CO2 affects Earth’s energy balance is confirmed by laboratory measurements, as well as by detailed satellite and surface observations of the emission and absorption of infrared energy by the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases absorb some of the infrared energy that Earth emits in so-called bands of stronger absorption that occur at certain wavelengths. Different gases absorb energy at different wavelengths. CO2 has its strongest heat-trapping band centred at a wavelength of 15 micrometres (millionths of a metre), with wings that spread out a few micrometres on either side. There are also many weaker absorption bands. As CO2 concentrations increase, the absorption at the centre of the strong band is already so intense that it plays little role in causing additional warming. However, more energy is absorbed in the weaker bands and in the wings of the strong band, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to warm further.
A Saturated Gassy Argument
26 JUN 2007 BY GROUP
A guest post by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
The simple physics explanations for the greenhouse effect that you find on the internet are often quite wrong.
¶ The arguments do sound good, so good that in fact they helped to suppress research on the greenhouse effect for half a century. …
¶ Still more persuasive to scientists of the day was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. …
¶ Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. …
¶ What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule …
¶ What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.
¶ The breakthroughs that finally set the field back on the right track came from research during the 1940s. Military officers lavishly funded research on the high layers of the air where their bombers operated, layers traversed by the infrared radiation they might use to detect enemies. Theoretical analysis of absorption leaped forward, with results confirmed by laboratory studies using techniques orders of magnitude better than Ångström could deploy. The resulting developments stimulated new and clearer thinking about atmospheric radiation. …
(The moral, it’s the freak’n Air Force scientist of a number of countries, working independently, that discovered Manmade Global Warm, and that’s the simple physical truth of the matter.)
(The article goes on, at length, anyone curious to learn how it really work, should take the time to read and digest the information.)
Nov 09, 2010
Carbon dioxide or water vapor, pick a side in this global warming debate. The fourth myth in the climate change series keeps the conversation going.
By: Cory Leahy
Increased carbon dioxide (CO2) can’t contribute to global warming: It’s already maxed out as a factor and besides, water vapor is more consequential.
(This one is shorter simpler and to the point, RealClimate does get into the scientific weeds.)
This one gets into the molecule, like what really happens to OCO and other greenhouse gases.
Here we get to the question of whether people have a moral duty to learn from substantive validated information that’s been presented to them?
The mystery of what kind of person refuses to learn and repeats the same stupefying and destructive lies, over and over. After all, this is existential stuff we’ve come unhinged from, is that really okay to ignore?
You were doing so well, up to this point.
Well yeah, we had most of this information well understood by the 1980s, but the public and its leaders were deliberately misinformed. . . look around now we got hell to pay, and we are just starting to feel it, yet most people really believe the next few decades won’t be any different from the past few decades. The deliberate stupefaction is beyond the pale.
And I’m being generous marking the 1980s
I know you’ll want to point me to something like this and tell me what sage advice it is, but then I find a line like this:
However, we do mean to say that news coverage, perhaps inadvertently, makes us believe that there are more climate change deniers than there really are. On the individual level, the share of climate change deniers has been decreasing continuously for the past decade (6). On the national level, 131 countries have adopted net-zero pledges (7).
But that’s all politicians talking and making promises, but look around what’s the reality looks like?
So superficially admitting Manmade Global Warming, doesn’t hold much water.
Appeasing deliberate climate science misinformers isn’t helping anything either.
Normalizing deliberate manufacture of misinformation hasn’t helped one bit either.
Sorry Lausten, please note I’m not naming any names.
Seriously CC, I’m one warning away from your 3 month haitus. I am not appeasing anyone and you are not fixing the world with your name calling.
Gotta love the Royal Society…
The process is too slow to warn people of what the end result will be.
It’s like telling people that smoking will kill you in 15 years. A lot of people think that gives them plenty of time to quit smoking and 10 years later they die of lung cancer.
There is this phrase " Not with a bang but a whimper" and that’s how humanity will become extinct.
The Meaning and Origin of ‘This is the Way the World Ends: Not with a Bang but a Whimper’
‘This is the way the world ends’, T. S. Eliot tells us at the end of his 1925 poem, ‘The Hollow Men’: ‘not with a bang but a whimper.’
Pretty sure Godzilla is thinking with a bang. It’s a habit.
In Godzilla Wee Trust
“…he told U.S. Senators that there was ‘no radioactive residue’ at the bombed cities and that radiation sickness was a ‘very pleasant way to die.’”
Could this be the dip of the 40’s in the climate record? The grand hiatus? Godzilla is feeling hot and bothered again…
In the video I posted from Big Think, this is a tactic that bad-faith debaters use. Say something incoherent. It’s a mild infraction of the rules, but you do it all the time.
Why can’t you share where you found that, let us read the full context.
How about it? Full citation please.
Not much of a haitus bro.
I’m going to bet either he provides nothing, or a long video with little or no facts
And you are sure that General Groves spoke with permission from authority?
It seems that the article is critical of the rogue general. Do you notice those things or do you seek out rare “incidents” that are unacceptable and have since been debunked?
Meanwhile, back to the reality of our global heat and moisture distribution engine that we depend on for everything we value, such as sustaining this planet that has nurtured us.
Does honesty matter in public dialogue?
How about good faith efforts?
How about the ability to accept and process new information?
Learning and growing, is that a good thing?
Again, good faith participation, how important is that?
Should hating taxes justify maliciously and tactically slandering serious scientists and their work?
What should one think of a society that can’t muster enough concerned citizens to proactively defend scientists and their efforts to inform the public, with the best available evidence, on a, frankly f’n existential, problem? Not that I should let a little something like the state of my children’s and grandchildren’s future matter to me on an emotional level. Then again, it does matters!
Remember science is the only realm where, dishonesty, lies, misrepresentation are actively ostracized, rather than blithe acceptance as business a usual (as has been society’s want for the past half century of me being a engaged observer). Just say’n. Back to the main show,
No one here said it doesn’t. The issue is civility. We are short on that. Democracy thrives on diversity, including diversity of opinion.
A post that lacks facts is an opportunity to provide facts, not a chance to attack the integrity of the poster.
What I see you doing @citizenschallengev4 is posting in a way that encourages more combative posting. The way you respond to a firehose of lies is to select one, address it thoroughly, and ask for a response, if none comes, point that out, if you get personal attacks and deflection instead of answers, point that out. At some point, point out that the person is not arguing in good faith, that nothing can be accomplished with them, and move on. At this forum, we have the power to ban bad actors.
What you indicate, by your actions, is that you want people to come here and give you a ton of anti-AGW memes, so you can return with your flood of links, data, logic, truth, and personal speeches. That’s not what this forum is for. There is a difference between providing reasonable information versus dumping it and repeating it because someone is obviously not reasonable and not interested in civil discourse. If you want to argue with unreasonable people, go to some other forum and find them. There are plenty out there. Destroying one member here with your massive database of truth will not alter the course of the AGW debate. More likely, it will attract people who want to argue for the sake of arguing.