Death knell for AGW

[Zipperfish]

Water is denser than air. Mercury has a weak mag field. There is no wind in space.



Water rules

“If Canada proceeds [with its oil development]… Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction.” -Jams Hansen, NASA, 2012

Water may be denser than air, but given they are both fluids, they should be subject to the same principles as far as heat conduction, convection and radiation go. Therefore if the oceans are responsible for heating the earth at night, then the atmosphere should have a likewise though diminished role. And if there is--there is your greenhouse effect.

Mercury has a magnetic field, therefore the same effect you propose for earth should be measurable and mathematically consistent on Mercury--and on all planets with a magnetic field. The temerpature gradietns should be consistent with the strength and number of the charged particles interacting with the magnetosphere. I've never seen that work done--has anyone done it?

The solar wind refers to ionized particles ejected from the sun, not a real wind.

 

[darkbeaver]

Please, Stop The Stupid

Posted on March 6, 2014 by stevengoddard
The conversation on the Venus thread has gone way past my tolerance for stupid.
Venus is not a closed system. It is located near this object – which provides a steady stream of shortwave radiation to the top of the Venusian atmosphere.

​

The ideal gas law is PV=nRT . R is a constant. P(ressure) and n(umber of molecules) are essentially constants, because the n(umber) of molecules in the atmosphere and Venusian gravity doesn’t change much over short time periods. The atmospheric P(ressure) is fixed by the weight of the atmosphere, which doesn’t change.
The only things that can change in the Venusian system are V and T. V(olume) is determined by the height of the atmosphere, which remains fixed due to the steady stream of solar radiation that keeps the molecules in the atmosphere vibrating. So T(emperature) at the surface remains constant. During the long Venusian night (thousands of hours) the temperature doesn’t drop. It behaves nothing like a greenhouse.
If the Sun turned off, the height of the atmosphere would shrink, as would the temperature. Eventually the atmosphere would freeze, so there would be no gas volume and the temperature would approach absolute zero.
It is similar on Earth. Our average surface temperature remains relatively constant because we receive a steady stream of solar radiation and the number of molecules in the atmosphere doesn’t change much over short time periods. What makes Earth different is that we have much less cloud cover, and we have oceans with a large heat capacity. Unlike Venus, the albedo of Earth can change due to variations in snow/ice and cloudiness. Ocean circulation also has an effect on temperature, so Earth’s average surface temperature can vary +/- 10C.

 

[Zipperfish]

Please, Stop The Stupid

Posted on March 6, 2014 by stevengoddard
The conversation on the Venus thread has gone way past my tolerance for stupid.
Venus is not a closed system. It is located near this object – which provides a steady stream of shortwave radiation to the top of the Venusian atmosphere.

The ideal gas law is PV=nRT . R is a constant. P(ressure) and n(umber of molecules) are essentially constants, because the n(umber) of molecules in the atmosphere and Venusian gravity doesn’t change much over short time periods. The atmospheric P(ressure) is fixed by the weight of the atmosphere, which doesn’t change.
​

The only things that can change in the Venusian system are V and T. V(olume) is determined by the height of the atmosphere, which remains fixed due to the steady stream of solar radiation that keeps the molecules in the atmosphere vibrating. So T(emperature) at the surface remains constant. During the long Venusian night (thousands of hours) the temperature doesn’t drop. It behaves nothing like a greenhouse.
If the Sun turned off, the height of the atmosphere would shrink, as would the temperature. Eventually the atmosphere would freeze, so there would be no gas volume and the temperature would approach absolute zero.
It is similar on Earth. Our average surface temperature remains relatively constant because we receive a steady stream of solar radiation and the number of molecules in the atmosphere doesn’t change much over short time periods. What makes Earth different is that we have much less cloud cover, and we have oceans with a large heat capacity. Unlike Venus, the albedo of Earth can change due to variations in snow/ice and cloudiness. Ocean circulation also has an effect on temperature, so Earth’s average surface temperature can vary +/- 10C.

The flaw in that argument is that when one side of venus is not facing the sun, it receives very little radiation from the sun.

 

[darkbeaver]

The flaw in that argument is that when one side of venus is not facing the sun, it receives very little radiation from the sun.

You're right, but. What kind of radiation isn't venus getting all the time? The planet has a mean temp, maintained by the sun. When venus was born it was a ball of plasma.

 

[Zipperfish]

You're right, but. What kind of radiation isn't venus getting all the time? The planet has a mean temp, maintained by the sun. When venus was born it was a ball of plasma.

OK, now your'e doing the Petros dance on me, changing the subject every post and posing questions instead of explaining your reasoning.

 

[Tonington]

Steyn isn't the only one hauling Mann into Court.

Mann is toast

Steyn is counter-suing. He's being hauled to court by Mann. Who is seeking legal action besides Steyn?

Bump

 

[Locutus]

INTER-COMPARISON OF THE CLOUD WATER PHASE AMONG GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS - Komurcu - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library


***Spoiler Alert***

All failed.

bitches. :lol:

h/t sda

 

[Tonington]

How is that a death knell? That's good work that will help improve models.

 

[pgs]

How is that a death knell? That's good work that will help improve models.

So you admit your models are inaccurate ?

 

[petros]

How is that a death knell? That's good work that will help improve models.

Until the impossible (ocean modelling) is achieved none of the atmospheric models will work. EVER.

 

[Tonington]

Until the impossible (ocean modelling) is achieved none of the atmospheric models will work. EVER.

Depending on how you define a model that 'works', it may be impossible. Complete and true representation is not likely possible. No model is technically right, some are useful. The work Locutus posted earlier will lead to more useful models, so that's hardly a death knell for AGW.

 

[Locutus]

US thermophysics @USthermophysics
Follow
"State of the art" climate models are diverging from reality faster than the rate of warming they predict


https://twitter.com/USthermophysics/status/442819692013445120/photo/1

 

[Locutus]

The Sound Of Settled Science


Modelling the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation of the 20th-Century


Complete fail.


The Sound Of Settled Science - Small Dead Animals

 

[EagleSmack]

 

[darkbeaver]

If there is no greenhouse effect, why doesn't the earth cool down to the same temperature as the moon at night?

for your consideration
Atmospheric Infrared Radiation

Posted on June 17, 2013 by Louis Hissink
It is a scientific fact that during night time downwelling infrared radiation is measured and is interpreted to represent the radiation of greenhouse gases.
It is also a scientific fact that the earth’s atmosphere is an electric conductor, albeit of high resistance, and the fair weather current has been estimated to be about 4×10^-12 amperes per square metre, and of course much higher if we include lightning.
Moving electric charges generate infrared radiation.
This contribution to the IR energy budget is totally ignored in climate modelling, and hence we actually do not know what proportion of the downwelling IR is due to greenhouse gases and due to atmospheric electrical currents.
Hence the climate modelling is “incomplete”. Yet we are being asked by Professor Will Steffen to commit economic suicide on the basis of an ill-thought out climate model?

 

[Zipperfish]

So you admit your models are inaccurate ?

I certainly do. But they improve with time.

for your consideration
Atmospheric Infrared Radiation

Posted on June 17, 2013 by Louis Hissink
It is a scientific fact that during night time downwelling infrared radiation is measured and is interpreted to represent the radiation of greenhouse gases.
It is also a scientific fact that the earth’s atmosphere is an electric conductor, albeit of high resistance, and the fair weather current has been estimated to be about 4×10^-12 amperes per square metre, and of course much higher if we include lightning.
Moving electric charges generate infrared radiation.
This contribution to the IR energy budget is totally ignored in climate modelling, and hence we actually do not know what proportion of the downwelling IR is due to greenhouse gases and due to atmospheric electrical currents.
Hence the climate modelling is “incomplete”. Yet we are being asked by Professor Will Steffen to commit economic suicide on the basis of an ill-thought out climate model?

I'm ot asking anyone to commit economic suicide I do ask that people face that is, to me, pretty unaassaible evidence, that increasing CO2 will increase the emission of infrared radiation towards the surface of the planet. I don't know much about the electric universe theory. It undercuts some pretty basic physics, so it eeds a high burden of evidence to overcome that.

But the thing is that the climate--according to AGW theory--is measurably changing. it's getting warmer on average (though some areas, like the North Atlantic, might get colder, at least according to the models). The rise in the average temperature is (on a geological time scale) very striking. But the conduction of the atmosphere, presumably, hasn't. So while they may or may not be an effect due to conduction of the atmosphere, it does not explai the rise in global average near-surface temperatures over the last 150 years or so.

 

[petros]

The rise in the average temperature is (on a geological time scale) very striking. But the conduction of the atmosphere, presumably, hasn't. So while they may or may not be an effect due to conduction of the atmosphere, it does not explai the rise in global average near-surface temperatures over the last 150 years or so.

Are you serious? Going by geological time this is cyclical and 100% expected.

 

[darkbeaver]

I certainly do. But they improve with time.



I'm ot asking anyone to commit economic suicide I do ask that people face that is, to me, pretty unaassaible evidence, that increasing CO2 will increase the emission of infrared radiation towards the surface of the planet. I don't know much about the electric universe theory. It undercuts some pretty basic physics, so it needs a high burden of evidence to overcome that.

Yet the evidence supporting those pretty basic physics does not exist.

predictions confirmed

predictions pending

In science one of the best markers for the accuracy of a model or theory is how well it predicts outcomes. This applies not only to future events but can also be applied to existing data. Below is a collection of predictions based on Electric Universe principles, which have been confirmed by observations and data. The link above provides a list of pending predictions.

At present this list concentrates on those things predicted before the event, but will be expanded in the future to cover many facets of modern astrophysics and cosmology. Comets: Deep Impact
Comets: Stardust
Sun
Mars
Saturn
Saturn's moons
Io
Supernovae: SN1987A
Fusion

 

[Tonington]

Sun

As a proponent of this electric universe, could you please point out to me where the prediction is in that linked material:

Sun

Shape of heliosphere

Thornhill: The expectations of NASA scientists are not being met because their shock front model is incorrect. The boundary that Voyager has reached is more complex and structured than a mechanical impact.”
see [ 2006 Sept 29]
Result

Voyagers 1 and 2 reached the boundary of the Sun’s influence in 2005 and 2007, respectively, taking point measurements as they left the solar system. Before IBEX, there was only data from these two points at the edge of the solar system. While exciting and valuable, the data they provided about this region raised more questions than they resolved. IBEX has filled in the entire interaction region, revealing surprising details completely unpredicted by any theories.
see [ 2009 Oct 20]​

There is no prediction there at all, certainly nothing describing what the heliosphere should look like. If you have a prediction, then you used a model...there's no model here.

 

[EagleSmack]