Polar Temps... warming... all guesswork

[piezoe]

The energy imbalance on Earth has grown to about 6/10 of a watt per square meter. That is the equivalent of exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days a year more than before:

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change#t-458272

That answers my question about heat radiating at night in the infrared spectrum. It is not happening fast enough.

Here are too interesting and fairly well informed responses to James Hansen I found at the link you gave:

This is from respondent Vern Williams:
"Based on the records, the planet has been warmer and much colder than now. IF you limit your scope to our measurements vice climate indicators, you only see the warming up from the little ice age. Even the University of East Anglia shows the flat temps over the last 17 years. So, we are not in an unstable condition and God is not trying to extinct the human species. By the way, I would look to the Bible for God's intentions, not the Incas or the Aztecs. Also, just to be clear, we are not experiencing the AGW that the models predict and most of Al Gore's predictions of doom have not occurred and, in fact, weather has changed to reverse some of the AGW crowd's "indicators of doom". Notice the lack of severe storms that were predicted.

Just to clarify, I am not employed by the oil companies. I have a degree in Oceanography, qualified as a Nuclear Engineer and a SME on Information Security. I object to the hysteria that AGW proponents invoke and the false data and false "science" that has been put forward from the University of East Anglia, the IPCC and others as fact. Increasing the price of electricity and gasoline hurts most those on fixed or low incomes. So why do you want to suffocate trees who need CO2 and drive up the prices? Last time I checked, a true scientist challenges his hypothesis and if contrary evidence or data comes to light, you do not declare "the science is settled" you try to find a formula or hypothesis that correctly reflects reality. It is not AGW "deniers" that are violating the scientific method it is you and others who declare the science is settled. Solar and wind are by definition unreliable sources of electric power. We can become a supplier of energy to the world and improve our balance of trade and economy. This would also free the EU from Russian energy blackmail. All good things in my book and not leading to a cataclysmic end as you predict."

And here is another posted by respondent Doug Ritter:

"If i were to question Dr. Oh sorry is he a "Dr."? if i was to question James Hansen's theories or Conclusions I would be a denier of something? So if i were to point out that 25,000 years ago the Laurentide Ice sheet covered much of the northern hemisphere in hundreds of feet of ice. About 10,000 years ago that ice age ended and that the earth has warmed ever since. I would be denying that the earth has warmed? If i were to theorize that the earth were going to continue to warm from natural Climate change, No matter what we do i would be denying? But if we listen to what James Hansen says at about 10:48 "Unless we stop the warming". Now we stop warming by stopping what has been occurring for 25,000 years or just the last 200 years? If i were to ask what has the Natural variability of climate over earth history been? http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html .I would be denying what? If i were to Question the scientific acumen of a Nobel laureate, Academy award winning associate of [J]ames Hansen. Al Gore

I would be denying that earth is and has warmed? Maybe i'll be a True Believer one day when i can manage to let others think for me... "

I think Hansen is under tremendous pressure these days because of the mountain of hard evidence building against his 1980's hypothesis. To continue ignoring the science that positively disproves his hypothesis, strongly suggests a deep seated psychological problem. No psychologically healthy scientist, in the face of such a mountain of evidence to the contrary, would persist as he has.

It's never been about whether change is occurring, it's always been about whether his hypothesis is correct.But as Hansen's hypothesis became increasingly doubtful, the rhetoric transformed itself to climate change !!!???

 

[futurecurrents]

I've told you many times before that I agree that "warming is underway" and that "human activity" is an important cause of it.

The debate is not about the existence of global warming or whether or not humans effect temperatures.

The debate is about how much.

Honestly, cut down on the weed use and you will find yourself making a lot more sense.

And yet none of your posts are about that and this post is about the denier industry. What do you think of the paid for denier industry designed to spread disinformation? They distribute posts like yours that are a collection of the usual denier industry propaganda talking points designed to obfuscate the issue. One might think that you worked directly for the Koch Bros and the fossil fuel industry. This is their current stance. Admit it's happening but deny everything else.

Fact is, this prediction is still as valid as science can predict right now. Unless you are a publishing climate scientist your opinion on it is worth doo doo.

 

[futurecurrents]

Here are too interesting and fairly well informed responses to James Hansen I found at the link you gave:

This is from respondent Vern Williams:
"Based on the records, the planet has been warmer and much colder than now. IF you limit your scope to our measurements vice climate indicators, you only see the warming up from the little ice age. Even the University of East Anglia shows the flat temps over the last 17 years. So, we are not in an unstable condition and God is not trying to extinct the human species. By the way, I would look to the Bible for God's intentions, not the Incas or the Aztecs. Also, just to be clear, we are not experiencing the AGW that the models predict and most of Al Gore's predictions of doom have not occurred and, in fact, weather has changed to reverse some of the AGW crowd's "indicators of doom". Notice the lack of severe storms that were predicted.

Just to clarify, I am not employed by the oil companies. I have a degree in Oceanography, qualified as a Nuclear Engineer and a SME on Information Security. I object to the hysteria that AGW proponents invoke and the false data and false "science" that has been put forward from the University of East Anglia, the IPCC and others as fact. Increasing the price of electricity and gasoline hurts most those on fixed or low incomes. So why do you want to suffocate trees who need CO2 and drive up the prices? Last time I checked, a true scientist challenges his hypothesis and if contrary evidence or data comes to light, you do not declare "the science is settled" you try to find a formula or hypothesis that correctly reflects reality. It is not AGW "deniers" that are violating the scientific method it is you and others who declare the science is settled. Solar and wind are by definition unreliable sources of electric power. We can become a supplier of energy to the world and improve our balance of trade and economy. This would also free the EU from Russian energy blackmail. All good things in my book and not leading to a cataclysmic end as you predict."

And here is another posted by respondent Doug Ritter:

"If i were to question Dr. Oh sorry is he a "Dr."? if i was to question James Hansen's theories or Conclusions I would be a denier of something? So if i were to point out that 25,000 years ago the Laurentide Ice sheet covered much of the northern hemisphere in hundreds of feet of ice. About 10,000 years ago that ice age ended and that the earth has warmed ever since. I would be denying that the earth has warmed? If i were to theorize that the earth were going to continue to warm from natural Climate change, No matter what we do i would be denying? But if we listen to what James Hansen says at about 10:48 "Unless we stop the warming". Now we stop warming by stopping what has been occurring for 25,000 years or just the last 200 years? If i were to ask what has the Natural variability of climate over earth history been? http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html .I would be denying what? If i were to Question the scientific acumen of a Nobel laureate, Academy award winning associate of [J]ames Hansen. Al Gore

I would be denying that earth is and has warmed? Maybe i'll be a True Believer one day when i can manage to let others think for me... "

I think Hansen is under tremendous pressure these days because of the mountain of hard evidence building against his 1980's hypothesis. To continue ignoring the science that positively disproves his hypothesis, strongly suggests a deep seated psychological problem. No psychologically healthy scientist, in the face of such a mountain of evidence to the contrary, would persist as he has.

So, TooOld, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas anymore? Wow, you better publish that paper! LOL

There is ZERO evidence that CO2 has ceased being a greenhouse gas.



Hey pie, I mean TooOld. Gee, what should I call you two sock puppets? Maybe YOU can find one publishing climatologist that expressly denies manmade global warming. Jem seems to be unable to.

 

[piezoe]

Nitro, I think the main controversy is incorporated within this phrase "...as a result of CO2 heat trapping" . The evidence now available does not support this.

CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, but that's a minor role. It primary function is as a carbon source to build plant carbohydrates.

Water is an even weaker greenhouse gas, but there are vast amounts of it! Water because of its high absolute values of heats of vaporization and fusion, its shielding and reflective properties, its heat capacity, its role as a greenhouse gas, its existence in all three of its physical states, and its tremendous abundance, is the moderator of the Earth's surface temperature. CO2 is insignificant compared to water in this role. Only if there was a positive feedback mechanism could addition of 120 molecules of CO2 per million molecules make much difference, through a photo physical effect alone, in the temperature . But if there was a positive feedback mechanism none of use would be here today! Why Hansen did not realize that is beyond comprehension. Its positive feedback incorporated into the models that produces exponential temperature rise.

Without positive feedback, all those models that depend on it are wrong. Lindzen has stated flat out that the feedback is negative! The facts support Lindzen, not Hansen.

The other killer for the Hansen hypothesis are all of the phase studies that show Temperature fluctuations leading CO2 fluctuations. That rules out any possibility of CO2 driving the Temperature fluctuations.

 

[futurecurrents]

The other killer for the Hansen hypothesis are all of the phase studies that show Temperature fluctuations leading CO2 fluctuations. That rules out any possibility of CO2 driving the Temperature fluctuations.

just lol

Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

 

[jem]

fc how many times will you print that article based on an debunked model. read it yourself... its based on a model.

Current admissions by NASA and just about every paper on the subject since your sale article is that clouds are very complext and science has no idea if co2 would increase warming clouds or cooling clouds.

NASA calls for further study on the subject.

the model in your article is garbage.

just lol

Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

 

[TooOldForThis]

And yet none of your posts are about that and this post is about the denier industry. What do you think of the paid for denier industry designed to spread disinformation? They distribute posts like yours that are a collection of the usual denier industry propaganda talking points designed to obfuscate the issue. One might think that you worked directly for the Koch Bros and the fossil fuel industry. This is their current stance. Admit it's happening but deny everything else.

Zero science content. And again you demonstrate your belief in silly conspiracy theories. "Denier industry", LOL.

Unless you are a publishing climate scientist your opinion on it is worth doo doo.

So you think your opinion on climate science is worth doo doo. I agree. Al Gore's opinion too.

 

[TooOldForThis]

So, TooOld, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas anymore? Wow, you better publish that paper! LOL

I've said many times here that I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But it is also a gas that dissolves in water and when water increases in temperature, CO2 tends to bubble out of it. This is a fact well known to climate alarmists.

Maybe YOU can find one publishing climatologist that expressly denies manmade global warming.

Again, you're setting up the strawman (or forgetting my position due to your reefer habit). I believe that humans do put CO2 into the atmosphere and that this increase in CO2 tends to cause increases in temperature. What's up for debate is "how much warming", and how much recent temperature changes have been due to natural climate variability. My guess is that about 1/3 of recent warming is man-made.

 

[futurecurrents]

I've said many times here that I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But it is also a gas that dissolves in water and when water increases in temperature, CO2 tends to bubble out of it. This is a fact well known to climate alarmists.



Again, you're setting up the strawman (or forgetting my position due to your reefer habit). I believe that humans do put CO2 into the atmosphere and that this increase in CO2 tends to cause increases in temperature. What's up for debate is "how much warming", and how much recent temperature changes have been due to natural climate variability. My guess is that about 1/3 of recent warming is man-made.

Well the experts believe that all the warming over the last hundred years is due to man. Your guess is worth doo doo.

And the CO2 is not coming out of the oceans, it's going into it.

 

[TooOldForThis]

Well the experts believe that all the warming over the last hundred years is due to man. Your guess is worth doo doo.

Of course (real) climate scientists are not sure that *all* the global warming is due to man. Here's what the latest (2014) IPCC says about it:

Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report
Summary for Policymakers
IPCC, 2014
The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

And the CO2 is not coming out of the oceans, it's going into it.

It's true that, recently, the oceans have been absorbing CO2. And I didn't say it wasn't. What you are quoting me saying is: "But it is also a gas that dissolves in water and when water increases in temperature, CO2 tends to bubble out of it. This is a fact well known to climate alarmists."

Here is NASA agreeing with me:

The Ocean's Carbon Balance
NASA Earth Observatory website (downloaded 2015)
As we burn fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels go up, the ocean absorbs more carbon dioxide to stay in balance. But this absorption has a price: these reactions lower the water’s pH, meaning it’s more acidic. And the ocean has its limits. As temperatures rise, carbon dioxide leaks out of the ocean like a glass of root beer going flat on a warm day.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/