"Whether we like it or not" - Page 30 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15199615
Steve_American wrote:. . . Has he failed to reply because he can't think of a way to refute this?

No, because your posts tend to be so long and to contain so many errors that I need to set aside a significant block of time to demolish them completely. I just haven't had that block of time to spare: late's silly accusations notwithstanding, I'm not being paid to do this.
Below I argue that the sun heats the Earth only about 0.0001 deg.C/day to warm it 1.1 deg.C over 3 decades. This is somewhat less than what is predicted by the climate scientists models, but not what it has warmed over the last 3 decades because the warming is speeding up quite a bit.

Nonsense. 2021 has been cooler than 2020, 2019, 2017 and 2016.
. . . This means that of the total energy that reaches the surface only about 0.00001 or 0.001% of it is retained by the CO2 to warm the Earth by 0.0001 deg.C/day. This is about 1/100,000 of what reaches the surface. The other 99,999/100,000 of all incoming energy escapes out into space.
. . . This all it takes to heat up the Earth on average over each year, by about the amount of heating the models are predicting.

The average emission temperature from the upper atmosphere is set by the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation, so additional CO2 can't significantly heat the earth's surface unless it increases the difference between surface temperature and emission temperature. It can't do that because IR radiation from the surface is already completely blocked by water vapor and the pre-industrial level of CO2.
#15199653
Truth To Power wrote:No, because your posts tend to be so long and to contain so many errors that I need to set aside a significant block of time to demolish them completely. I just haven't had that block of time to spare: late's silly accusations notwithstanding, I'm not being paid to do this.

Nonsense. 2021 has been cooler than 2020, 2019, 2017 and 2016.

The average emission temperature from the upper atmosphere is set by the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation, so additional CO2 can't significantly heat the earth's surface unless it increases the difference between surface temperature and emission temperature. It can't do that because IR radiation from the surface is already completely blocked by water vapor and the pre-industrial level of CO2.

Well yes, it does seem like 2021 is cooler than the last few years.
However, we have seen this before in the recent temp record.
If you click on the link and scroll down past the global maps and just a little past the spreadsheet you will see this --- Year-to-date Temperature: January–September 2021. And the resulting bar graph.
There you can see that there have been some years that were cooler and then the "curve" when back to rising. It has done this 9 times (by my count) since 1977.

link => https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202109

So, I predict that the curve will return to rising because nothing long term has changed.

Then, in the part I highlighted, TtP shows that he didn't grok my point that just because all the IR heat/light is absorbed doesn't mean it is blocked. Here he asserts that it is 'blocked' instead of his previous 'absorbed'. But his assertion doesn't change the fact that you-all know, which is that you can feel the heat of the sun on your skin and know that every day the sun heats the place where you live by some amount (on average 10 deg.C), and 99,999/100,000 of this heat must somehow escape into space. If all of it is blocked in the lower atmosphere, then the Earth would warm up about 10 deg.C each day and not cool off at light. This is just a consequence of 'conservation of energy'.
. . . If the Earth warmed up just 1 deg.C per day (let alone 10 deg.C/day) and didn't cool off at night, then after 1 week the Earth would be 8 deg.C in temp higher from pre-industrial levels, and we would all be dead or dying. This is not happening, therefore TtP is totally wrong to claim that the IR heat/light is being blocked in the lower atmosphere.

TtP loves to make assertions without any evidence even after it has been proven to the Lurkers that his assertion can't possibly be true. This is just the latest example. I'm retired, and so I have the time to spend refuting him each day.

Frankly, it is amazing to me that TtP can't grok the point that the IR heat/light can't be blocked (and so trapped) in the lower atmosphere, without heating the lower atmosphere.
.
#15199663
Truth To Power wrote:2021 has been cooler than 2020, 2019, 2017 and 2016.


Since 2016 and 2020 are tied for hottest year on record, and 2019 is in second place, and 2017 is in fourth place, 2021 can still be in the top five hottest years ever recorded.

But since we do not know what the exact number will be for 2021 yet, it is impossible to make verifiable and true claims about 2021 in comparison to other years at this time.
#15199713
@Truth To Power

The upper atmosphere is irrelevant here. We are more interested in the parts of the atmosphere that affect us - To wit, the lower stratosphere, the tropopause, and the troposphere. Common sense tells us the temperature at the 'surface' as seen from space, which is not the surface we stand on, hardly changes. If it did, we would either be frozen popsicles or broiled; nobody denies that.

But that is not what we are talking about: what we are talking about is the weather. And the divide between weather and climate is largely artificial when weather persists.


:)
#15199715
ingliz wrote:The polar front jet, known as "the jet stream", forms in the tropopause/lower stratosphere.

Image

Increased CO2 levels lead to a decrease in ozone concentrations in the tropical lower stratosphere and an increase over the high latitudes and throughout the upper stratosphere, heating the stratosphere, and reducing the meridional temperature gradient.

Microscopically.
A reduced meridional temperature gradient weakens the jet stream. Warm, dry planetary wave peaks in the jet stream can turn into enclosed high-pressure systems,

"Can."
which intensity and stall as wave meandering slows. These blocking highs prevent new storm tracks and low-pressure systems moving through with new jet stream meanders, causing more extreme weather - drought and flood.

Except that CO2 has increased almost 50% since pre-industrial times, yet there is no credible empirical evidence that droughts or floods have become either more frequent or more extreme. None.
#15199717
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then provide evidence for this claim.

I have, many times. You just ignore it, dismiss it, ridicule it, and then claim I haven't provided it.
Meanwhile, I will look for evidence that shows that CO2 has had a significant effect on heat loss from the Earth and its atmosphere.

This evidence would disprove your claim that CO2 does not lead to global warming and merely “shifts the equilibrium emission altitude and temperature, and has no significant effect on the heat budget”.

And I found it:

No you didn't.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges
Nature volume 410, pages 355–357 (2001)

….
Abstract
The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1,2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3,4.

Because temperature governs CO2. Not the other way around. The authors of this paper have dishonestly reversed cause and effect to make reality conform to AGW theory.
But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5,6,7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8,9,10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11,12,13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

So CO2 not only “shifts the equilibrium emission altitude and temperature”, but also has a “significant effect on the heat budget”.

Nope. Your source says no such thing. It merely found that the emission spectrum has changed along with the composition of GHGs at the emission altitude. Its final sentence, "Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate," is a bald lie. There is no evidence for any such conclusion in the paper.
#15199718
Truth To Power wrote:I have, many times. You just ignore it, dismiss it, ridicule it, and then claim I haven't provided it.


Then post a link to where you provided the evidence.

No you didn't.

Because temperature governs CO2. Not the other way around. The authors of this paper have dishonestly reversed cause and effect to make reality conform to AGW theory.


Unsupported ad hominem is not a logical rebuttal to the evidence.

Nope. Your source says no such thing. It merely found that the emission spectrum has changed along with the composition of GHGs at the emission altitude. Its final sentence, "Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate," is a bald lie. There is no evidence for any such conclusion in the paper.


Yes, the emission spectrum changed.

It changed by allowing less radiation to be emitted into space.

This is called the greenhouse effect.

It makes the Earth warmer.
#15199719
Steve_American wrote:Well yes, it does seem like 2021 is cooler than the last few years.
However, we have seen this before in the recent temp record.

Which is why claims about the causes of climate change have to be based on a specified time frame, not claims about what has happened "recently" or how much the earth "is warming."
If you click on the link and scroll down past the global maps and just a little past the spreadsheet you will see this --- Year-to-date Temperature: January–September 2021. And the resulting bar graph.
There you can see that there have been some years that were cooler and then the "curve" when back to rising. It has done this 9 times (by my count) since 1977.

link => https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202109

So, I predict that the curve will return to rising because nothing long term has changed.

Wrong. The sun has become quite inactive. So I predict we will not revisit the highs of 2016 despite exponentially increasing CO2.
Then, in the part I highlighted, TtP shows that he didn't grok my point that just because all the IR heat/light is absorbed doesn't mean it is blocked. Here he asserts that it is 'blocked' instead of his previous 'absorbed'. But his assertion doesn't change the fact that you-all know, which is that you can feel the heat of the sun on your skin and know that every day the sun heats the place where you live by some amount (on average 10 deg.C), and 99,999/100,000 of this heat must somehow escape into space. If all of it is blocked in the lower atmosphere, then the Earth would warm up about 10 deg.C each day and not cool off at light. This is just a consequence of 'conservation of energy'.

Blocked and absorbed have the same sense here, and we are talking about IR radiation, not the visible light that you can feel from the sun on your face.
. . . If the Earth warmed up just 1 deg.C per day (let alone 10 deg.C/day) and didn't cool off at night, then after 1 week the Earth would be 8 deg.C in temp higher from pre-industrial levels, and we would all be dead or dying. This is not happening, therefore TtP is totally wrong to claim that the IR heat/light is being blocked in the lower atmosphere.

Absurd strawman. We say a blanket "blocks" heat from escaping your body, but that doesn't mean it makes you overheat and die.
TtP loves to make assertions without any evidence even after it has been proven to the Lurkers that his assertion can't possibly be true.

Garbage. You just make up silly strawmen and beat them up. See above.
This is just the latest example. I'm retired, and so I have the time to spend refuting him each day.

Disgaceful.
Frankly, it is amazing to me that TtP can't grok the point that the IR heat/light can't be blocked (and so trapped) in the lower atmosphere, without heating the lower atmosphere.

:roll:
#15199722
Truth To Power wrote:credible empirical evidence

Arctic amplification has reduced the Arctic/mid-latitude temperature contrast in recent decades, particularly during autumn and winter. Because this temperature gradient is a fundamental driver of the jet stream's westerly wind speed, the weaker gradient leads to slower zonal jet stream winds. A slower jet stream tends to take a more meandering path as it encircles the Northern Hemisphere. Large north-south waves in a highly meandering flow tend to travel eastward more slowly. These waves create the high- and low-pressure systems at the surface, so their slower eastward progression increases the likelihood of persistent weather patterns that can cause a variety of extreme events.

See:

Screen JA, Simmonds I. (2010) The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification. Nature 464, 1334–1337.

Overland JE, Wang M. (2010) Large-scale atmospheric circulation changes are associated with the recent loss of Arctic sea ice. Tellus A Vol. 62, 1.

Francis JA, Vavrus SJ. (2012) Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, 6.

Liu J, Curry J, Wang H. (2012) Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 2.

Thompson DW, Wallace JM. (2001) Regional climate impacts of the Northern Hemisphere annular mode. Science 293, 85–89.

Palmén E, Newton CW. (1969) Atmospheric circulation systems: their structure and physical interpretation New York, NY: Academic Press.

Screen JA, Simmonds I. (2014) Amplified mid-latitude planetary waves favour particular regional weather extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 704–709.


:)
#15199739
ingliz wrote:Arctic amplification has reduced the Arctic/mid-latitude temperature contrast in recent decades, particularly during autumn and winter. Because this temperature gradient is a fundamental driver of the jet stream's westerly wind speed, the weaker gradient leads to slower zonal jet stream winds. A slower jet stream tends to take a more meandering path as it encircles the Northern Hemisphere. Large north-south waves in a highly meandering flow tend to travel eastward more slowly. These waves create the high- and low-pressure systems at the surface, so their slower eastward progression increases the likelihood of persistent weather patterns that can cause a variety of extreme events.

See:

Screen JA, Simmonds I. (2010) The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification. Nature 464, 1334–1337.

Overland JE, Wang M. (2010) Large-scale atmospheric circulation changes are associated with the recent loss of Arctic sea ice. Tellus A Vol. 62, 1.

Francis JA, Vavrus SJ. (2012) Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, 6.

Liu J, Curry J, Wang H. (2012) Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 2.

Thompson DW, Wallace JM. (2001) Regional climate impacts of the Northern Hemisphere annular mode. Science 293, 85–89.

Palmén E, Newton CW. (1969) Atmospheric circulation systems: their structure and physical interpretation New York, NY: Academic Press.

Screen JA, Simmonds I. (2014) Amplified mid-latitude planetary waves favour particular regional weather extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 704–709.

Thank you for posting the proof that there is no credible empirical evidence for CO2 emissions having caused an increase in either drought or flood. Three of the papers you cite base their arguments on declines in arctic sea ice, but arctic sea ice has not declined since 2012.
#15199740
Pants-of-dog wrote:July of 2021 was the hottest July on record.

Even though 2016 was the hottest year on record, there has veen no significant cooling since then.

Depends on what you call significant. The point is, you have claimed that temperature "is rising" when it has in fact fallen since 2016. That empirical fact supports my view that lower solar activity is reducing temperatures, and falsifies your claim that rising CO2 is raising temperatures.
#15199741
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then post a link to where you provided the evidence.

I have better uses for my time than to go back and pore over dozens of pages to find the evidence you will then again falsely claim I haven't provided.
Unsupported ad hominem is not a logical rebuttal to the evidence.

You apparently don't know what ad hominem means or what evidence means.
Yes, the emission spectrum changed.

It changed by allowing less radiation to be emitted into space.

No, it just emitted it at different wavelengths.
This is called the greenhouse effect.

It makes the Earth warmer.

Emitting the same amount of energy at different wavelengths doesn't make the earth warmer, and making the upper troposphere warmer doesn't necessarily make the earth's surface warmer.
#15199748
Truth To Power wrote:Depends on what you call significant. The point is, you have claimed that temperature "is rising" when it has in fact fallen since 2016.


I never claimed that temperature has risen since 2016.

I am not even going to ask you to quote where I said that, since I know that I never did. You must have misread.

When people talk about the observed global warming, they usually mean a multi-decade warming, not just the last few years.

That empirical fact supports my view that lower solar activity is reducing temperatures, and falsifies your claim that rising CO2 is raising temperatures.


Since temperatures are not going down since 2016, and (more importantly) since the 2010s were the hottest decade ever recorded, solar activity does not cut it as an explanation.

This is especially true since there is no evidence that solar activity has been especially high for the last decade.

Truth To Power wrote:I have better uses for my time than to go back and pore over dozens of pages to find the evidence you will then again falsely claim I haven't provided.


So you refuse to provide any evidence that you have supported your claims.

You apparently don't know what ad hominem means or what evidence means.


Logically, it should make all layers of air below it warmer, since hotter bodies do not absorb beat as effectively as colder bodies.

In other words, every layer of atmosphere will behave more as an insulating layer for the ones below as they absorb heat energy.
#15199753
@Truth To Power

Bollocks!

Sea ice in the Arctic has decreased dramatically since the late 1970s, particularly in summer and autumn. Since the satellite record began in 1978, the yearly minimum Arctic sea ice extent (which occurs in September) has decreased by about 40%. Ice cover expands again each Arctic winter, but the ice is thinner than it used to be. Estimates of past sea ice extent suggest that this decline may be unprecedented in at least the past 1,450 years. Because sea ice is highly reflective, warming is amplified as the ice decreases and more sunshine is absorbed by the darker underlying ocean surface.

The departure from average air temperature in the Arctic at the 925 hPa level, October 2021.

Image
Source: NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory

Yellows and reds indicate higher than average temperatures.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 26 Nov 2021 07:20, edited 2 times in total.
#15199780
Truth To Power wrote:Which is why claims about the causes of climate change have to be based on a specified time frame, not claims about what has happened "recently" or how much the earth "is warming."

Wrong. The sun has become quite inactive. So I predict we will not revisit the highs of 2016 despite exponentially increasing CO2.

Blocked and absorbed have the same sense here, and we are talking about IR radiation, not the visible light that you can feel from the sun on your face.

Absurd strawman. We say a blanket "blocks" heat from escaping your body, but that doesn't mean it makes you overheat and die.

Garbage. You just make up silly strawmen and beat them up. See above.

Disgaceful.

:roll:


Again still, TP doesn't grok that energy either leaves the Earth or it heats the Earth.
There is no other option.

Therefore, IR heat/light can't be blocked in the sense of stopped.
It can be slowed or reduced slightly, though.

If it is absorbed, then it either is reradiated OR it heats the air there.
If it heats the air there, it will heat it about 10 deg.C/day.
That doesn't happen, so we know that it is reradiated.

Everything else he said there is word salad.

He says the sun has become "quite inactive", but the suns irradiance has not changed or decreased.
So, he says it is 'something' other than irradiance. But, he can't name or explain what it is.
Word salad.
.
#15199870
Pants-of-dog wrote:I never claimed that temperature has risen since 2016.

I am not even going to ask you to quote where I said that, since I know that I never did. You must have misread.

Recognize this?

"Then state a relevant fact showing that the sun is causing the observed global warming."

Use of the present continuous tense indicates an action that is now in progress.
When people talk about the observed global warming, they usually mean a multi-decade warming, not just the last few years.

Then why do you always pretend that the sun being in a period of low activity now implies that its historically high activity until several years ago could not have caused the warming observed until several years ago?
Since temperatures are not going down since 2016,

I already posted the evidence that they have been.
and (more importantly) since the 2010s were the hottest decade ever recorded,

:roll: But that "record" only begins at the end of the coldest period in the last 10,000 years! If your temperature record begins in February, of course at the end of July, July is going to be the hottest month ever recorded! That doesn't mean there is anything odd or alarming about July being hotter than February, March, April, May and June. You just weren't keeping records for all the previous Junes, Julys and Augusts.
solar activity does not cut it as an explanation.

No, that's just more antiscientific claptrap from you. By that "logic," the angle of the sun does not cut it as an explanation for why July is the hottest month since February: the sun was on average higher in June.
This is especially true since there is no evidence that solar activity has been especially high for the last decade.

See? You pretend not to have claimed the earth has warmed since 2016, but now you are trying to change the subject to "the last decade."
So you refuse to provide any evidence that you have supported your claims.

No, I refuse to waste my time hunting through dozens of pages of posts to find the ones where I provided the evidence just because you always claim I have not provided evidence no matter how many times I provide it.
Logically, it should make all layers of air below it warmer, since hotter bodies do not absorb beat as effectively as colder bodies.

In other words, every layer of atmosphere will behave more as an insulating layer for the ones below as they absorb heat energy.

Sure. Just as adding one cotton blanket to a stack of 30 wool blankets and one cotton blanket will make all the blankets lower in the stack warmer. But how much difference will it make to the guy in the bed?

GET IT???
#15199875
Steve_American wrote:Again still, TP doesn't grok

Without reading further, I know with 100% certainty that you are about to make a false claim about what I understand:
that energy either leaves the Earth or it heats the Earth.
There is no other option.

See?
Therefore, IR heat/light can't be blocked in the sense of stopped.
It can be slowed or reduced slightly, though.

And that is what GHGs do.
If it is absorbed, then it either is reradiated OR it heats the air there.
If it heats the air there, it will heat it about 10 deg.C/day.
That doesn't happen, so we know that it is reradiated.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.
He says the sun has become "quite inactive", but the suns irradiance has not changed or decreased.

Yes it has. You even quoted a post of PoD's that showed it has decreased.
So, he says it is 'something' other than irradiance. But, he can't name or explain what it is.

Just as Darwin correctly stated that species result from variations in inherited characteristics without ever knowing what DNA is, much less how it works.
#15199877
ingliz wrote:@Truth To Power

Bollocks!

Fact.
Sea ice in the Arctic has decreased dramatically since the late 1970s, particularly in summer and autumn. Since the satellite record began in 1978, the yearly minimum Arctic sea ice extent (which occurs in September) has decreased by about 40%.

What a coincidence. The earth cooled markedly between the 1940s and the 1970s (though like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, this fact has been removed from the climate record). Obviously the ice cover is going to be at its maximum at the end of a cooling period.
Estimates of past sea ice extent suggest that this decline may be unprecedented in at least the past 1,450 years.

But other estimates say that there was less ice as recently as the Medieval Warm Period.
Because sea ice is highly reflective, warming is amplified as the ice decreases and more sunshine is absorbed by the darker underlying ocean surface.

Which means something has interrupted the warming, because sea ice reached a minimum a decade ago.
The departure from average air temperature in the Arctic at the 925 hPa level, October 2021.

Image
Source: NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory

Yellows and reds indicate higher than average temperatures.

Over what period is that the "average"? Maybe a period beginning near the end of the 1940s-1970s cooling trend...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that.
  • 1
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Bigoted little fascist aren't you. No, SO i[…]

Every nation believes itself to be exceptional […]

"Whether we like it or not"

When people talk about the observed global warmin[…]

I'm a fucked up loser, now go ahead and not be a […]