WetEV
Posts: 1757
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: The End of it all

Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:06 am

GetOffYourGas wrote:
WetEV wrote:The ice doesn't care.


The ice also doesn't care what caused the temperature to rise - whether it was CO2, methane, or sun spots. So your retort does precisely nothing in refuting Reg's claim.


Reg claims that the surface isn't warming. The ice refutes that.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

GetOffYourGas
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:56 pm
Delivery Date: 09 Mar 2012
Location: Syracuse, NY

Re: The End of it all

Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:36 am

WetEV wrote:Reg claims that the surface isn't warming. The ice refutes that.


That's your interpretation. Here's the actual exchange:

WetEV wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:Get your money back for any blanket which only raises the temperature of the surface of your skin by 0.001K! That's what the scientific measurements indicate CO2 does.


You fail. Make-up-a fact-Friday isn't this week, and today isn't Friday.

The ice doesn't care.


My interpretation is that Reg claims the effect of CO2 is very minor. He implies that it only causes about 0.001K worth of warming. He doesn't say (in this quote) that the surface of the earth isn't warming, only that it's primarily caused by factors other than CO2. To which you reply that ice is melting? Hence my comment:

GetOffYourGas wrote:
WetEV wrote:The ice doesn't care.


The ice also doesn't care what caused the temperature to rise - whether it was CO2, methane, or sun spots. So your retort does precisely nothing in refuting Reg's claim.


Hopefully it's clear where I'm coming from here...
~Brian

EV Fleet:
2011 Torqeedo Travel 1003 electric outboard on a 22' sailboat
2012 Leaf SV (traded for Bolt)
2015 C-Max Energi (302A package)
2017 Bolt Premier

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5583
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

IT IS THE DAWN OF A BEAUTIFUL DAY

Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:46 am

WetEV wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:Get your money back for any blanket which only raises the temperature of the surface of your skin by 0.001K! That's what the scientific measurements indicate CO2 does.


You fail. Make-up-a fact-Friday isn't this week, and today isn't Friday.

The ice doesn't care.
I've covered this in detail many times before, most recently here.

When you say that CO2 is like a blanket over the ocean, that is true. But when you omit the scientific fact that it only changes the surface (about 1 um depth) less than 0.00K, that is a lie of omission. That's your bad since this fact has been made clear to you on multiple occasions. Here is the description of what happens again:

Radiant shortwave energy CAN heat solid objects directly. OTOH, heat ONLY ever flows from the ocean to the atmosphere. It NEVER flows the other way. This is because the dominant effect at the surface of the ocean is evaporation, which absorbs heat from BOTH the ocean and the atmosphere. As a result, the surface of the ocean is always a bit cooler than the water just below the surface. This gradient must be maintained so that heat can flow to the surface by conduction:

Image

The effect of shortwave radiation on the surface is to slightly reduce this temperature gradient so that less heat flows to the surface (and less is therefore lost into the atmosphere). The effect due to only CO2 does not change much over time and is so tiny that it could never be measured using modern instruments. Because of this, researchers have instead measured the effect of cloud cover on this surface gradient because it is equivalent to a forcing which varies by over 100 W/m^2. So how much does a 100 W/m^2 change in shortwave radiation reduce this temperature gradient? About 0.1K. Since CO2 concentrations have increased by less than 50% and a doubling is widely believed to account for about 1.5 W/m^2, then we can determine that CO2 alone reduces this gradient by a mere 0.0005K. Put another way, a reduction in cloud cover of 1% completely eliminates the ENTIRE effect of CO2 on the Earths oceans. You can read about the measurements which were done here.

Of course, we saw a 3% reduction in cloud cover during the decade of the 1990s (and continuing to this day), which instead results in a HEATING effect for the oceans due to an additional amount of longwave radiation of about 10 W/m^2 entering and directly heating the oceans.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
2011 miles at purchase. 10K miles on Apr 14, 2013. 20K miles (55.7Ah) on Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah) on Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah) on Feb 8, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5583
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

IT IS THE DAWN OF A BEAUTIFUL DAY

Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:02 am

GetOffYourGas wrote:My interpretation is that Reg claims the effect of CO2 is very minor. He implies that it only causes about 0.001K worth of warming. He doesn't say (in this quote) that the surface of the earth isn't warming, only that it's primarily caused by factors other than CO2.
That's exactly correct. An excellent example is the "blob" that had persisted over the northern Pacific Ocean for a couple of years, blocking the west coast of the United States from getting the water-bearing jet stream and causing the severe drought that occurred there. The surface temperature of the water there was multiple degrees warmer than normal. People tried to claim that the 'blob" was somehow caused by CO2, but such an idea is utter nonsense, for a variety of reasons:

1) CO2 is well-mixed in the Earth's atmosphere. Had it somehow (magically?) heated the surface of the northern Pacific Ocean by a couple of degrees, it would have ALSO heated the surface of the global oceans EVERYWHERE by the same amount. Clearly the "blob" was caused by a local event, not a global one.
2) The appearance of the "blob" occurred over the course of months. In order to heat that much water by that amount would require massive increases in longwave radiation or upwelling of warm water from below. This can only be accomplished by a reduction in cloud cover over the area or some change in ocean currents.
3) The "blob" disappeared as quickly as it had arrived. If CO2 caused the "blob" to appear, would anyone care to take a crack at the idea of how it made the "blob" go away, given that the CO2 was still there in even higher concentrations?

No, when we measure changes in the temperature of the surface of the global oceans, other factors are by far the dominant causes. There are two primary factors which control the surface temperature of the oceans:
1) Changes in local cloud cover, which modulated how much sunlight reaches the surface of the ocean.
2) Upwelling of warmer or cooler water from deeper within the ocean.

Both of those factors can rapidly change the temperature of the surface of the ocean. We see the second factor at work frequently in the operation of El Ninos.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
2011 miles at purchase. 10K miles on Apr 14, 2013. 20K miles (55.7Ah) on Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah) on Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah) on Feb 8, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

WetEV
Posts: 1757
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: The End of it all

Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:57 am

GetOffYourGas wrote:My interpretation is that Reg claims the effect of CO2 is very minor. He implies that it only causes about 0.001K worth of warming. He doesn't say (in this quote) that the surface of the earth isn't warming, only that it's primarily caused by factors other than CO2.


Reg claims a lot of things. He also claims that the surface isn't warming, that all of the past measured warming is due to fraud.

RegGuheert wrote:Of course those aren't the measured global temperatures. As we all know, this data has been tampered with to get a desired result.


RegGuheert wrote:We know that ice extent today is virtually the same as it was in the 1920s,1930s and 1940s. You can read the same alarming newspaper articles about ice loss from all around the world from the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Of course it was nonsense then, just as it is nonsense now.


Ice doesn't care.

Image
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5583
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

IT IS THE DAWN OF A BEAUTIFUL DAY

Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:22 am

We know that NASA has been "putting their thumb on scales" when it comes to the temperature record:

Image

And we know that these changes were made with the intention to hide the truth about the past temperatures:
So how did climate scientists make the 1940’s warmth and subsequent cooling disappear? They got together and decided to erase it.

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt


Government climate science is the biggest fraud in history, which is why they and their minions in the press attempt to prosecute and silence anyone who dissents from it.
Finally, we know that much of the historical global temperature data is simple "made up":
Climategate E-mails show that their ocean data is fake too.

date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org
to: Thomas Crowley <thomas.crowley@ed.ac.uk>

Tom,

The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.

Cheers
Phil

di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt
I don't just make claims. I back them up with hard evidence.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
2011 miles at purchase. 10K miles on Apr 14, 2013. 20K miles (55.7Ah) on Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah) on Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah) on Feb 8, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

ENIAC
Posts: 643
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:05 pm
Delivery Date: 13 Jan 2011
Leaf Number: 224
Location: Sun Diego, CA USA

Re: IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:11 am

Relationship of CO2 to temperature in degrees C.

Image
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/g ... mperatures
Myths And Facts About Electric Cars

"The ice doesn't care"
-- WetEV

GetOffYourGas
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:56 pm
Delivery Date: 09 Mar 2012
Location: Syracuse, NY

Re: IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:56 pm

Correlation /= Causation
~Brian

EV Fleet:
2011 Torqeedo Travel 1003 electric outboard on a 22' sailboat
2012 Leaf SV (traded for Bolt)
2015 C-Max Energi (302A package)
2017 Bolt Premier

ENIAC
Posts: 643
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:05 pm
Delivery Date: 13 Jan 2011
Leaf Number: 224
Location: Sun Diego, CA USA

Re: IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:38 pm

History of CO2 and the greenhouse effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4YSwajvFAY
Myths And Facts About Electric Cars

"The ice doesn't care"
-- WetEV

WetEV
Posts: 1757
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:07 pm

GetOffYourGas wrote:Correlation /= Causation


Lack of correlation disproves causation.

Cosmic rays might be cosmic, but don't relate to climate.

Image

There does seem to be some link to weather.

Abstract

As early as 1959, it was hypothesized that an indirect link between solar activity and climate could be mediated by mechanisms controlling the flux of galactic cosmic rays (CR) [Ney ER (1959) Nature 183:451–452]. Although the connection between CR and climate remains controversial, a significant body of laboratory evidence has emerged at the European Organization for Nuclear Research [Duplissy J, et al. (2010) Atmos Chem Phys 10:1635–1647; Kirkby J, et al. (2011) Nature 476(7361):429–433] and elsewhere [Svensmark H, Pedersen JOP, Marsh ND, Enghoff MB, Uggerhøj UI (2007) Proc R Soc A 463:385–396; Enghoff MB, Pedersen JOP, Uggerhoj UI, Paling SM, Svensmark H (2011) Geophys Res Lett 38:L09805], demonstrating the theoretical mechanism of this link. In this article, we present an analysis based on convergent cross mapping, which uses observational time series data to directly examine the causal link between CR and year-to-year changes in global temperature. Despite a gross correlation, we find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend. However, on short interannual timescales, we find a significant, although modest, causal effect between CR and short-term, year-to-year variability in global temperature that is consistent with the presence of nonlinearities internal to the system. Thus, although CR do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, they do appear as a nontraditional forcing in the climate system on short interannual timescales.


http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253.full
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

Return to “Environmental Issues”