Our cooling world

[Zipperfish]

Nooooo it's 0.32C not "about" O.5C and was it supposed to stay at the coldest point of the Holocene?

Yes or no?

Since 1850 we've risen 0.001939C per year...from the lowest point in well over 10,000 years.

OMG OMG OMG?

I don't know what temperature it is "supposed" to be. Neither do you. Based on the radiation physics, however, and given the increase in CO2, we're about half a degree warmer than we otherwise would be.

Your rate of increase doesn't match observational evidence.

 

[petros]

The Greenhouse Effect isn't a failed model. The fact that CO2 absorbs and emits in the infrared spectrum isn't a failed model either. That's pretty basic physics right there.

We have direct evidence that the temperature has increased around 0.6 K in the last 150 years or so. Which is, give or take, pretty close to what you'd expect from a radiation physics perspective, given the increase in atmosphereic CO2.

Well sunshine, were we supposed to stay at the coldest point in the last 10,000 years, yes or no? What happened to pitch us into the depths? How did we recover? CO2 or the sun? What happened to the sun over the last two solar cycles? TSI dropped creating a lull in AGW?

I don't know what temperature it is "supposed" to be. Neither do you. Based on the radiation physics, however, and given the increase in CO2, we're about half a degree warmer than we otherwise would be.

Your rate of increase doesn't match observational evidence.

0.32C÷165= 0.001939394C per year.

If you don't what it is supposed be you can't make any warming or cooling claims.

We don't live in a jar so using the jar theory doesn't apply.

 

[Zipperfish]

Well sunshine, were we supposed to stay at the coldest point in the last 10,000 years, yes or no? What happened to pitch us into the depths? How did we recover? CO2 or the sun? What happened to the sun over the last two solar cycles? TSI dropped creating a lull in AGW?

All good points. However, a salient influence that you have left out is an increase in atmospheric CO2. That has an effect also.

 

[petros]

All good points. However, a salient influence that you have left out is an increase in atmospheric CO2. That has an effect also.

Prove it without the jar theory because we don't live in a jar.

 

[Zipperfish]

0.32C÷165= 0.001939394C per year.

If you don't what it is supposed be you can't make any warming or cooling claims.

Can you provide your observational evidence for the 165 years and the 0.32 deg C?

Prove it without the jar theory because we don't live in a jar.

And...the Petros Dance.

We've been here before, remember? This is where I ask: if the atmosphere has no moderating effect on temperature, then why doesn't the night-soide of the earth go down to about -200?

Arguing that there is no such thing as teh Greenhouse Effect puts you in wingnut land.

 

[petros]

You can't prove f-ck all without the jar and you know it. Go ahead show me the guaranteed non-theoretical CO2 warming.

If it is a deadringer whip out your peal. Let it ring.

Well zip? No hard evidence of CO2 warming as opposed to the natural increase in and current fall inTSI that we know is real? It's only a plausible theory outside the jar isn't it?

 

[Walter]

The Greenhouse Effect isn't a failed model. The fact that CO2 absorbs and emits in the infrared spectrum isn't a failed model either. That's pretty basic physics right there.

We have direct evidence that the temperature has increased around 0.6 K in the last 150 years or so. Which is, give or take, pretty close to what you'd expect from a radiation physics perspective, given the increase in atmosphereic CO2.

I posted this on another thread but it is also pertinent here.


Fred Singer with more explanation on the pause of warming.
Articles: Cause of Pause in Global Warming
Now we await the ad hominem post saying that Singer has no qualification on this subject.

 

[Zipperfish]

You can't prove f-ck all without the jar and you know it. Go ahead show me the guaranteed non-theoretical CO2 warming.

If it is a deadringer whip out your peal. Let it ring.

Well zip? No hard evidence of CO2 warming as opposed to the natural increase in and current fall inTSI that we know is real? It's only a plausible theory outside the jar isn't it?

There's no such thing as proof in the natural scienbces. Proof is for logic and alcohol.

There is no shortage of evidence however. The evidence of the greenhouse effect, that I can think of, is (a) the average temperature of the planet is not -18 deg C (which it would be based on greybody radiation physics) and (b) the night-side of the planet does not cool to temperatures approching that of the outer space surrounding it.

According to your TSI theory, since there is virtually no solar radiation hitting the planet at night, we should get down to around -200 deg C.

I posted this on another thread but it is also pertinent here.


Fred Singer with more explanation on the pause of warming.
Articles: Cause of Pause in Global Warming
Now we await the ad hominem post saying that Singer has no qualification on this subject.

I don't disagree with much of what Singer is saying here. It should be noted that Singer does not deny the existence of the Greenhouse Effect.

 

[petros]

That is your evidence of CO2 induced warming?

Kinda lean isn't?

 

[Walter]

I don't disagree with much of what Singer is saying here. It should be noted that Singer does not deny the existence of the Greenhouse Effect.

Who does? Without it we'd all be dead.

 

[petros]

prove
pro͞ov/
verb
past participle: proven
1.
demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
"the concept is difficult to prove"
synonyms: show (to be true), demonstrate (the truth of), show beyond doubt, manifest, produce proof/evidence; More
antonyms: disprove
demonstrate by evidence or argument (someone or something) to be.
"innocent until proven guilty"
LAW
establish the genuineness and validity of (a will).
(in homeopathy) demonstrate the action of (a remedy) by seeing what effect it produces in a healthy individual.
be seen or found to be.
"the plan has proved a great success"
synonyms: turn out, be found, happen
"the rumor proved to be correct"
demonstrate one's abilities or courage.
"a new lieutenant, very green and very desperate to prove himself"
synonyms: demonstrate one's abilities/qualities, show one's (true) mettle, show what one is made of
"I was happy to have the chance to prove myself"
rare
test the accuracy of (a mathematical calculation).
subject (a gun or other item) to a testing process.
2.
(of bread dough) become aerated by the action of yeast; rise.

 

[Zipperfish]

Who does?

Petros.

 

[taxslave]

Nooooo it's 0.32C not "about" O.5C and was it supposed to stay at the coldest point of the Holocene?

Yes or no?

Since 1850 we've risen 0.001939C per year...from the lowest point in well over 10,000 years.

OMG OMG OMG?

The problem I have with this is not so much if we warmed 0.3 or 0.5 degrees in 165 years but the accuracy of both the measuring equipment used and the attention to detail of those doing the measuring. Presumably the equipment used 165 years ago was not anywhere near as accurate as modern equipment.

In any event half a degree warmer in 165 years is not something to cause great concern or damage our economy over. Now it it was 3 or 5 degrees it might be different. All this squabbling over insignificant numbers is just taking us away from the real problem and that is teaching people to pick up their garbage.

 

[MHz]

All good points. However, a salient influence that you have left out is an increase in atmospheric CO2. That has an effect also.

Like plants growing better? Tell me the bad part about that, I have to cut the lawn more often. Perhaps if everybody left there a inch longer that would eat up the CO2 so O2 can increase and we can start thinking clearly. It doesn't matter if it is again or for the first time really as long as there is no back-slide.

 

[Zipperfish]

Like plants growing better? Tell me the bad part about that, I have to cut the lawn more often. Perhaps if everybody left there a inch longer that would eat up the CO2 so O2 can increase and we can start thinking clearly. It doesn't matter if it is again or for the first time really as long as there is no back-slide.

That may be the case. To date however, CO2 is continuing to accumulate at a rate of about 1.5 to 2 ppm/year, so the plants have yet, it appears, to take up the excess CO2. More O2 would be interesting. I wonder what would happen then. I did an undergrad thesis on the imapct of hyperbaric oxygen on mammalian cell biocatalysts.

 

[waldo]

What happened to the sun over the last two solar cycles? TSI dropped creating a lull in AGW?

don't be telling more porkies, hey petros! Per PMOD:

hey petros, care to show a temp vs. TSI correlation... say something like this 1880-to-2009 graphic (Per SKS):

 

[petros]

Happy New year!

 

[gerryh]

The graph means nothing. Why use 1880 as the start point? Why use 1981 - 2010 average as the base line? When talking climate, it is far too short a comparison. This is not unusual for the alarmists though. They pick there start and end times to best suit their own agenda.

 

[waldo]

The graph means nothing. Why use 1880 as the start point? Why use 1981 - 2010 average as the base line? When talking climate, it is far too short a comparison. This is not unusual for the alarmists though. They pick there start and end times to best suit their own agenda.

it's called the instrumental record... when did you think it started? That baseline period follows a recommendation from the WMO (World Meteorological Organization) which suggests using the latest decade to compile a 30 year average. It also allows a more representative comparison between the assorted temperature datasets. Besides, what did you think temperature anomalies were calculated against? Surely you didn't think temperature trending was based upon absolute temperatures... or did you? You do know what temperature trending is, right?

in any case, different baselines are used as appropriate... whether the most recent 30 years (1981-2010) , the 20th century average (1901-2000), the 1961-1990 average (as a reference to the prior baseline), etc. If you had actually followed the JMA link I provided you would have read the following:

"The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2014 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.27°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.63°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.70°C per century."
​

 

[petros]

The graph means nothing. Why use 1880 as the start point? Why use 1981 - 2010 average as the base line? When talking climate, it is far too short a comparison. This is not unusual for the alarmists though. They pick there start and end times to best suit their own agenda.

Cherry picking at it's finest not to mention there was no climate prior to 1854, the sun has nothing to do with climate,the surface of the oceans are getting deeper and deeper, we aren't at the coldest point in the past ten thousand years, caribou sh-t and tree stumps melting out of alpine glaciers and higher tree lines aren't an indication of a much warmer past and we are supposed to protect ice relics of the coldest point in over 10,000 years and I have a graph to prove it.