Congrats to US and China on Climate Change

[Metsfanmax]

Is it possible to have a useful result without considering time? Is it possible to have a result when considering time? I find it interesting how the laws of thermodynamics are considered a "red herring" when talking about global warming, at least to a changist.

I am making some incorrect assumptions, not you. Interesting.

I tried to find something gentler to say than that you are simply using incorrect assumptions about the atmosphere, but that is basically what happened here. It is very simple to see that the Earth's atmosphere as a whole is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, and will never be. The temperature is never the same everywhere.

Now, I did not say that the laws of thermodynamics are not important to the issue. I made an explicit point to say that it's a foundational concept -- we can only speak about temperature if we assume that local patches of the atmosphere are in thermodynamic equilibrium. However, I said it's a red herring if you're trying to understand the large-scale dynamics of the atmosphere as an attempt to return to a global thermodynamic equilibrium. This is just not what happens, and so you cannot draw intuition about what's happening that way. The atmosphere does attempt to return to a radiative equilibrium state, where as much light energy goes into to any one patch as goes out, and that's where you need to start drawing intution from.

(By the way: yes, it is possible to have a useful result without considering time. That is the whole basis of an equilibrium state. A system in thermodynamic equilibrium, for example, has a single temperature that does not change in time. Now, at the microscopic level atoms and molecules are constantly bouncing around and changing their speeds, and the whole system is different from second to second if you were to take instantaneous snapshots, but still the average speed of those molecules is basically the same from second to second. Every time that you use the word temperature, you are making the assumption that we can usefully describe a system as time-independent in at least some way.)

Also, I generally hate to play the expertise card. I will never say "I am right about this because I am a physicist and I know more than you." I will always put in a good faith effort to explain whatever it is you want to know. However, we need to apply the same basic principle of respect from earlier. As a physicist, I do know a little about what I am talking about. My research is in fluid dynamics. Your starting assumption should be that I am not making basic errors about the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Of course I am susceptible to such errors, but I am less likely to make them than the average lay person. I would appreciate at least that amount of respect as we continue. (Indeed, so would most of the climate scientists who do their work. I can tell you, it feels pretty hurtful to dedicate your life's work to understanding a complicated physical system, only to be (wrongly) accused that you forgot something obvious and very simple.)

Next big section, which makes almost no sense, I'd be happy to go through more thoroughly. Let's begin with solar panels. Solar panels absorb light at certain wavelengths and produce energy based on the absorbed light. A kid recently invented a solar panel which can absorb more wavelengths, thereby increasing the amount of energy created. What does this mean for CO2?

Nothing. CO2 absorbs at very specific wavelengths. So does methane. However, those wavelengths can be stretched. For example, motions of molecules tend to broaden those specific wavelengths. That's why the area around CO2 and methane is kind of a bell curve around a particular wavelength, rather than just a thin line at that wavelength. But in order to change those base wavelengths, you need to alter the chemical structure of the molecules (i.e. make it different from CO2). You cannot directly alter the base wavelengths that a molecule absorbs at using some neat mechanical trick, because it's based on the electronic makeup of the molecule itself.

"Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

So 95% of infrared is reflected back into space by CO2 and NO. At the absorption wavelength lower down, how much is diverted from leaving the earth? Where is it diverted to?

Please don't insert random quotes without context. It makes it very difficult to understand what is going on. I googled that phrase and came up with this NASA press release about a CME:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... mar_saber/

I also don't really understand your question, but if you're asking, what happens to the shortwave radiation, the answer is basically nothing. All of the sunlight that gets diverted from the surface is scattered or reflected away (principally by clouds, but with a small contribution from the atmosphere itself, as we saw earlier), but it's basically not absorbed. It just happens to be the case that the dominant absorbers in the atmosphere (CO2, water, methane, etc.) do not have emission/absorption wavelengths in the visible. They're mainly located in the infrared (longwave).

Even, if as you say there is far less CO2 in the stratosphere to divert the infrared, it diverts far more than it collects lower down. Lower down is the domain of water. Water dictates the thermal action of the lower atmosphere.

I am still not sure what you are getting at here. I think you may be saying that it was the stratospheric CO2 that re-radiated the solar storm energy back into space, but again, this is why you shouldn't pull in random sources from a different context. It is meaningless to compare a solar storm to the issue of regular solar radiation and global warming, because a CME is the ejection of lots of fast charged particles. These particles tend to interact principally with the upper atmosphere, and so that's what gets heated in such an event. Then, that heat is transferred to coolants like CO2 via kinetic collisions, and then the CO2 can radiate it back out, cooling it off. Since the stratosphere is so thin, that light usually escapes back out into space. This is the same principle that explains why the stratosphere is cooling -- add more CO2 to it, and you've got more coolant.

So in other words, what has been scientifically shown and studiously ignored by changists, is that CO2 emissions themselves perform a balancing act depending on where they are in the atmosphere.

That is not "ignored" by "changists," that is the fundamental assumption of the model. CO2 does what it does, wherever it is. In the troposphere, that means absorbing outgoing heat from the surface, because of how dense it is. In the stratosphere, that mainly means radiating heat out into space because of how thin it is.

What has also been scientifically proven and ignored by changists is that water is the dominant player in thermal activity in the lower atmosphere.

Again, not "ignored" by "changists." Water is the only reason that the temperature of the Earth is high enough to live on -- thanks to its greenhouse properties. It is also why more CO2 is so dangerous. Increasing CO2 by a factor of two tends to increase the temperature by 1 degree Celsius, but that is basically doubled when you consider the additional water-holding properties of the atmosphere, and tripled when you consider some other feedbacks. I promise you that water is the most important part of any climate scientist's modelling capabilities. We just don't talk about it as a source of radiative forcing, for reasons that we can discuss.

Fourth, taking a local equilibrium is absolute nonsense.

I don't know what to tell you, man. It's like you're comfortable completely bashing what scientists do while having never read a physics textbook, because your intuition doesn't agree. What am I supposed to do with that? The world doesn't necessarily work the way you think it ought to.

When NASA says that 95% of infrared is reflected

NASA did not say it was reflected. Reflection of light occurs when a photon bounces off a molecule and returns back into space. That is not what happened in that solar storm event, and I spent time explaining the difference between reflection and absorption to point this out. The best I can do after that is to direct you to a mechanics textbook to learn more about the differences between those events.

Also: I just realized that I spent a shitload of time on this post, and I feel like you don't appreciate it at all. If your next post doesn't at least give me that basic respect I asked for above, that I have at least some idea of what I am talking about, I am not going to put in the energy to do this anymore.

[KoolBak]

I appreciate your time spent Mets

[shickingbrits]

Sorry that you wasted your time, dude.

You say it isn't a closed system. Why isn't it? According to the changist theory, the solar insolation is static. For your equations representing the absorption spectrum of various GHGs, you assume a closed system, why does this system magically open and close at your whim?

I never said that the atmosphere is achieving a global equilibrium, I said it is achieving an equilibrium based on the various pressures which exist. Perhaps you are suggesting that gravity has changed?

Yes you say it is possible to reach useful result without considering time. Is that why you were able to create a graph of steadily increasing contents of heat in the ocean while the oceans actual temperature was in constant flux?

Playing the experience card is rather useless. Einstein rewrote the laws of science at 26.

You say that nothing happens to the heat that CO2 absorbs, doesn't it retransmit it on the nanosecond scale? Isn't it surrounded by a powerful absorber of heat? It's like you go to an apple orchard after harvest and say all the apples are gone. Yes, the apples are gone, they went into someone's belly and out the other side.

Next, what are you saying, do you have any idea?

What I'm saying is that if 95% of the energy is diverted at the upper atmosphere by CO2 and only a tiny percent of outgoing radiation is blocked by CO2, then there must be a balance point at which CO2 is not absorbing heat. You want context from the quote, context this "Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

I said that CO2 was a coolant in the atmosphere, you said I was wrong. NASA says it is. Play your experience card with them. I said that the Volcanic eruption of a year's worth of CO2 created a year without summers. You agreed to this.

Water is the most important source. Yes I believe so. I also believe that the joint report done by John Hopkins and others made this clear several months ago. Made what clear? That all the previous estimates of heating due to CO2 were wrong.

It wasn't reflected, it was absorbed. I see. So it prevented 95% of the energy from the solar storm by absorbing it and keeping it in the atmosphere? Dude, come now. Come on.

I understand that you have dedicated your livelihood to this. But, for real, stop being so hypocritical. If it isn't a closed system, why even talk about the lack of radiation seen at the GHGs spectrums? If CO2 is a coolant, why not mention it? If water has been shown to have a mitigating effect on global warming, why not discuss it? If CFCs and their disuse had a major impact on global temperature, why not include that info? It's not a closed system, except when you want it to be.

[demonfork]

Sorry that you wasted your time, dude.

You say it isn't a closed system. Why isn't it? According to the changist theory, the solar insolation is static. For your equations representing the absorption spectrum of various GHGs, you assume a closed system, why does this system magically open and close at your whim?

I never said that the atmosphere is achieving a global equilibrium, I said it is achieving an equilibrium based on the various pressures which exist. Perhaps you are suggesting that gravity has changed?

Yes you say it is possible to reach useful result without considering time. Is that why you were able to create a graph of steadily increasing contents of heat in the ocean while the oceans actual temperature was in constant flux?

Playing the experience card is rather useless. Einstein rewrote the laws of science at 26.

You say that nothing happens to the heat that CO2 absorbs, doesn't it retransmit it on the nanosecond scale? Isn't it surrounded by a powerful absorber of heat? It's like you go to an apple orchard after harvest and say all the apples are gone. Yes, the apples are gone, they went into someone's belly and out the other side.

Next, what are you saying, do you have any idea?

What I'm saying is that if 95% of the energy is diverted at the upper atmosphere by CO2 and only a tiny percent of outgoing radiation is blocked by CO2, then there must be a balance point at which CO2 is not absorbing heat. You want context from the quote, context this "Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

I said that CO2 was a coolant in the atmosphere, you said I was wrong. NASA says it is. Play your experience card with them. I said that the Volcanic eruption of a year's worth of CO2 created a year without summers. You agreed to this.

Water is the most important source. Yes I believe so. I also believe that the joint report done by John Hopkins and others made this clear several months ago. Made what clear? That all the previous estimates of heating due to CO2 were wrong.

It wasn't reflected, it was absorbed. I see. So it prevented 95% of the energy from the solar storm by absorbing it and keeping it in the atmosphere? Dude, come now. Come on.

I understand that you have dedicated your livelihood to this. But, for real, stop being so hypocritical. If it isn't a closed system, why even talk about the lack of radiation seen at the GHGs spectrums? If CO2 is a coolant, why not mention it? If water has been shown to have a mitigating effect on global warming, why not discuss it? If CFCs and their disuse had a major impact on global temperature, why not include that info? It's not a closed system, except when you want it to be.

You're wasting your time with mets dude.

The guy is a clueless blowhard. There is nothing that you can say or no evidence that you could supply that could deviate his position.

[shickingbrits]

I understand that.

I used to believe in climate change until I looked at the evidence. I see Mets dominating the climate change threads and everyone sitting back and taking him on his word.

I don't wish for others to start to agree with him without understanding what they are agreeing to. He himself agrees that a tax of $300 per tonne of emissions is necessary to combat climate change. If you ask anyone in the world if they would like to get $300 per tonne of carbon, who would say no? The government is moving us in this direction under the false presuppositions proposed by Mets. I am still not sure if he understands what they will do with the money. It seems that he doesn't. A person in the US produces 20 tonnes of CO2, or $6,000 worth of taxes. He admits that he would like this slid in at a low rate and then increased.

Most of my family is in the US. A lot live in the same place as koolbak. When it comes time to voice their opinion, I would like them to realize what they are actually saying, they are going to run themselves into the ground for a non-existent problem.

If Mets was more honest and said:

Water negates the impact of CO2 by 30%
CO2 in the upper atmosphere negates the impact by 15%
CFCs contributed 16% but are no longer being emitted
But CO2 emissions still pose a danger to... and we can deal with the threat by...Then I'd be happy to throw him some kickstarter money.

But he can't, because by the time he goes through the counteracting effects present, he isn't left with a credible threat.

This thread is read by very few people. And even if I could convince them all, it wouldn't make much difference. But it makes a difference to me knowing that I tried.

[Dukasaur]

You say it isn't a closed system. Why isn't it?

It isn't a closed system because energy enters and exits. A closed system is one where the energy in it remains constant.

[shickingbrits]

Duk,

Please understand that a closed system can represent multiple objects.

Or in other words, we can qualify the amount of energy entering and exiting the system because it is otherwise closed.

[Dukasaur]

Duk,

Please understand that a closed system can represent multiple objects.

Or in other words, we can qualify the amount of energy entering and exiting the system because it is otherwise closed.

A closed system can represent multiple objects, and they can swap energies amongst each other, but the sum total of their energies has to remain constant, or it's not a closed system.

[shickingbrits]

Fine, then we can't measure the temperature of earth, we don't exist and please stop trying to say that CO2 can warm an open system. Otherwise, if you are trying to use closed system equations, then please expect me to do so as well.

It is difficult to go through why earth is a closed system. I don't know if there is anyone alive who can go through all the variables. But the sum of the variables, once defined, creates a closed system.

[Dukasaur]

Fine, then we can't measure the temperature of earth, we don't exist and please stop trying to say that CO2 can warm an open system. Otherwise, if you are trying to use closed system equations, then please expect me to do so as well.

It is difficult to go through why earth is a closed system. I don't know if there is anyone alive who can go through all the variables. But the sum of the variables, once defined, creates a closed system.

Wrong. The amount of energy coming in is not the same as the amount of energy going out. Therefore it is an open system.

[shickingbrits]

Wrong, a closed system is defined as the sum of variables, or the conservation of energy. Once you can calculate the sum of the variables, or the conservation of energy, you have defined a closed system.

Or, if the sum of the energy going out is not the same as the sum of the energy coming in, you can define where the energy has gone, thereby closing the system.

Weak Duk. And a little sad.

[demonfork]

Fine, then we can't measure the temperature of earth, we don't exist and please stop trying to say that CO2 can warm an open system. Otherwise, if you are trying to use closed system equations, then please expect me to do so as well.

It is difficult to go through why earth is a closed system. I don't know if there is anyone alive who can go through all the variables. But the sum of the variables, once defined, creates a closed system.

Wrong. The amount of energy coming in is not the same as the amount of energy going out. Therefore it is an open system.

You can't be this clueless can you?

Please send me your paypal account so that I can donate some money to you that you can use to buy a clue with.

[Metsfanmax]

Sorry that you wasted your time, dude.

This isn't about wasting my time. As I said earlier, I do this mostly to teach myself more about the issue and how to talk about it. Also, I know that there are people on the forum who care about the issue and enjoy learning about it. My comment was more to point out that the only point in engaging with a debate with someone is if at least there's a belief in good faith on both sides. I completely disagree with most of what you're saying, but I know why you are saying it, and I know it is because you believe that government action on this issue would create more problems than it solves. However, you are accusing me of dishonesty, and there doesn't seem to be a very good reason for that.

You say it isn't a closed system. Why isn't it?

If you want to use jargon to talk about this that is fine, though I prefer not to, since jargon tends to obscure meaning rather than explain it when most people reading the conversation are not familiar with the science. But if you are going to use jargon, you have to use it correctly. A closed system (thermodynamically speaking) is one that only has internal interactions, and nothing external to it influencing how it develops. It cannot lose or gain energy. That's simply the definition. By that standard, the Earth is not a closed system. Full stop. The moment we realize that we're influenced greatly by solar radiation, the Earth is no longer a thermodynamically closed system. (Same is true for the fact that the Earth can radiate away energy that then never returns.) But it doesn't matter. There aren't "equations for closed systems" and "equations for open systems." There's just the same basic set of equations that describe physical interactions, all of the time. It is useful to understand that the Earth is not a closed system, but that doesn't mean the Euler equations for hydrodynamics or the radiative transfer equation suddenly change form. Using jargon like this is hurting the discussion, not helping it.

According to the changist theory, the solar insolation is static.

No, it is not. Insolation varies periodically, as well as sometimes irregularly. That is part of the models.

What I'm saying is that if 95% of the energy is diverted at the upper atmosphere by CO2

No. That is, unequivocally, an incorrect reading of what is going on. Carbon dioxide is not singlehandedly absorbing the energy from this solar storm. It is the molecules in the upper atmosphere that simply absorb the energy from a solar storm. This includes nitrogen, oxygen, and whatever else is up there. This heats up the upper atmosphere. But it's only carbon dioxide and other similar gases that can efficiently radiate that new energy back out. So they start doing that. And the gas cools down a little. Then, because the carbon dioxide molecules are now less energetic than their neighbors like nitrogen and oxygen, they'll bump into them, transferring the energy from the nitrogen molecule to the CO2 molecule. Then it will radiate it away. This continues to happen until all the excess energy is gone. This is very different from suggesting that the CO2 somehow blocks or diverts the energy. It was the entire upper atmosphere that diverted the energy. It was just only the greenhouse gases that are efficient at doing something with it.

Your misunderstanding comes simply from a lack of physics. Anything that is good at cooling is also good at warming. This is an incontrovertible consequence of the fact that absorption and emission are reverse processes that happen at the same wavelengths. That is why carbon dioxide can both cool the stratosphere and warm the troposphere. To suggest that carbon dioxide is a good coolant immediately implies that it is also good at absorbing heat, at least if the conditions are there to do so. And that's exactly what happens in our atmosphere -- the conditions for triggering its warming properties are happening in the lower atmosphere, and the conditions for triggering its cooling properties are happening in the upper atmosphere. It's the exact same physics, just applied in different circumstances.

For your equations representing the absorption spectrum of various GHGs, you assume a closed system

That is literally a meaningless thing to say. I don't "assume a closed system." The only thing I point out is that if you compare outgoing radiation at various wavelengths from like 1970 to 2000, you see mostly the same amount of radiation except at the wavelengths where we know greenhouse gases have absorption bands. And only at those wavelengths. That is literally a direct reading of the graph -- no assumptions necessary. Your challenge is to explain how that can happen without making reference to greenhouse gases absorbing more light. If you can't answer that, you aren't getting anywhere with your alternative hypothesis. Forget "open system" or "closed system." Actually come up with an explanation, instead of waving your hands and spouting jargon. Until you do, I'm done conversing with you. Because only when you have an alternative explanation for hard empirical data can we have a real debate between the options.

[demonfork]

I understand that.

I used to believe in climate change until I looked at the evidence. I see Mets dominating the climate change threads and everyone sitting back and taking him on his word.

I don't wish for others to start to agree with him without understanding what they are agreeing to. He himself agrees that a tax of $300 per tonne of emissions is necessary to combat climate change. If you ask anyone in the world if they would like to get $300 per tonne of carbon, who would say no? The government is moving us in this direction under the false presuppositions proposed by Mets. I am still not sure if he understands what they will do with the money. It seems that he doesn't. A person in the US produces 20 tonnes of CO2, or $6,000 worth of taxes. He admits that he would like this slid in at a low rate and then increased.

Most of my family is in the US. A lot live in the same place as koolbak. When it comes time to voice their opinion, I would like them to realize what they are actually saying, they are going to run themselves into the ground for a non-existent problem.

If Mets was more honest and said:

Water negates the impact of CO2 by 30%
CO2 in the upper atmosphere negates the impact by 15%
CFCs contributed 16% but are no longer being emitted
But CO2 emissions still pose a danger to... and we can deal with the threat by...Then I'd be happy to throw him some kickstarter money.

But he can't, because by the time he goes through the counteracting effects present, he isn't left with a credible threat.

This thread is read by very few people. And even if I could convince them all, it wouldn't make much difference. But it makes a difference to me knowing that I tried.

Most people don't agree with him.

Most people have the ability to take a look at the ridiculous claims that he makes and realize that he has developed tunnel vision. He won't even consider the option that his alarmist views, regarding climate, could be wrong.

I'm a Technical Engineering Director for a industry leading engineering firm. I work with top scientists from just about every major company and research facility in the word.

Rarely if ever do I run into science zealots like mets that believe that "the debate is over". In fact I can't remember the last time that I worked with a scientist or engineer that put stock in anthropogenic climate change.

It's a Government manufactured crisis designed to generate tax dollars. There is absolutely no conclusive science that ties co2 levels to rise in temperature. It's a joke.

Check out this documentary... it does an excellent job of breaking down the farce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_T ... al_Warming

[Metsfanmax]

Check out this documentary... it does an excellent job of breaking down the farce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_T ... al_Warming

Your own link supports the thing I've been calling for in this thread.

Lomborg concludes that a limited carbon tax is needed in the First World

[demonfork]

Check out this documentary... it does an excellent job of breaking down the farce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_T ... al_Warming

Your own link supports the thing I've been calling for in this thread.

Lomborg concludes that a limited carbon tax is needed in the First World

Please take your own advice and don't post random quotes taken out of context. Watch the fucking documentary before you comment about it. I've watched it 3 times, there is very little if anything in the documentary that outlines what you support/believe.

[Metsfanmax]

Check out this documentary... it does an excellent job of breaking down the farce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_T ... al_Warming

Your own link supports the thing I've been calling for in this thread.

Lomborg concludes that a limited carbon tax is needed in the First World

Please take your own advice and don't post random quotes taken out of context. Watch the fucking documentary before you comment about it. I've watched it 3 times, there is very little if anything in the documentary that outlines what you support/believe.

Instead of Lomborg, a political scientist by training, I'd prefer to look at what actual climate scientists say about what's currently happening in climate science. Cook et al. (2013) demonstrates quite clearly that the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science literature concurs that humans are causing global warming through greenhouse gas emissions. 97%, in fact. If you wish to counter this claim, please do your own analysis and get back to us.

Of course, we don't need a formal study to realize how absurd it is to argue that there aren't really any scientists who take that position. The IPCC's assessment reports, which all agree with this conclusion, are written by hundreds of scientists reviewing thousands of papers in the climate science literature.

[shickingbrits]

Let's take a step back here, because you are contradicting yourself quite frequently.

I know quite a bit about greenhouses. The concept of the greenhouse effect is that incoming solar radiation is ignored by CO2, bounces off the land and water, which then emits long wave radiation back to space which CO2 doesn't ignore. It traps it. Like the glass and other barriers of a greenhouse.

That the upper atmosphere somehow absorbs this energy goes against the whole idea. If CO2 absorbs solar radiation and the re-emitted radiation of the earth, then the solar radiation which contains more energy than the re-emitted radiation is blocked from reaching the earth by CO2, and therefore should have a cooling effect.

"It is not singlehandedly absorbing the energy from the solar storm" no, it is, as NASA says, one of the best coolants in the atmosphere. CO2 and NO result in 95% of the energy not reaching the earth. This is a very important point and I wonder if you can translate this meaning of CO2 at lower levels in the atmosphere. Let's try.

"You see mostly the same amount of radiation except at the wavelengths where we know greenhouse gases have absorption bands."

Let's try your upper atmosphere analogy here.

"This heats up the upper atmosphere. But it's only carbon dioxide and other similar gases that can efficiently radiate that new energy back out. So they start doing that. And the gas cools down a little. Then, because the carbon dioxide molecules are now less energetic than their neighbors like nitrogen and oxygen, they'll bump into them, transferring the energy from the nitrogen molecule to the CO2 molecule. Then it will radiate it away."

Now let's change a few words. Upper to lower, nitrogen to H2O, and what do we have? We have you giving your own explanation for why the heat is not present and the radiation bands aren't seen.

Let me try to make it more clear.

CO2 blocks outgoing less energetic radiation from leaving the atmosphere, it does so at the nanosecond rate. Water vapor is ever present and readily absorbs the heat from the excited CO2 molecule. The water vapor is then transported up in the atmosphere and gives off the heat to space. Since water vapor emits a different wavelength than CO2, it will not be observed in the same spectrum that CO2 takes it in.

This is the basis for the research by John Hopkins, et al, which determined that CO2's greenhouse effect is mitigated by water vapor present in the atmosphere.

As for your open system, when the earth, sun, and atmosphere bordering space are taken into account, it is a closed system.

Further, while here, please explain the discrepancies between ocean temperature and the steadily increasing amount of heat present in your graph from a page back. Specifically, ocean temperatures have been in constant flux, while the graph shows a steady increase in heat content.

[shickingbrits]

I understand that.

I used to believe in climate change until I looked at the evidence. I see Mets dominating the climate change threads and everyone sitting back and taking him on his word.

I don't wish for others to start to agree with him without understanding what they are agreeing to. He himself agrees that a tax of $300 per tonne of emissions is necessary to combat climate change. If you ask anyone in the world if they would like to get $300 per tonne of carbon, who would say no? The government is moving us in this direction under the false presuppositions proposed by Mets. I am still not sure if he understands what they will do with the money. It seems that he doesn't. A person in the US produces 20 tonnes of CO2, or $6,000 worth of taxes. He admits that he would like this slid in at a low rate and then increased.

Most of my family is in the US. A lot live in the same place as koolbak. When it comes time to voice their opinion, I would like them to realize what they are actually saying, they are going to run themselves into the ground for a non-existent problem.

If Mets was more honest and said:

Water negates the impact of CO2 by 30%
CO2 in the upper atmosphere negates the impact by 15%
CFCs contributed 16% but are no longer being emitted
But CO2 emissions still pose a danger to... and we can deal with the threat by...Then I'd be happy to throw him some kickstarter money.

But he can't, because by the time he goes through the counteracting effects present, he isn't left with a credible threat.

This thread is read by very few people. And even if I could convince them all, it wouldn't make much difference. But it makes a difference to me knowing that I tried.

Most people don't agree with him.

Most people have the ability to take a look at the ridiculous claims that he makes and realize that he has developed tunnel vision. He won't even consider the option that his alarmist views, regarding climate, could be wrong.

I'm a Technical Engineering Director for a industry leading engineering firm. I work with top scientists from just about every major company and research facility in the word.

Rarely if ever do I run into science zealots like mets that believe that "the debate is over". In fact I can't remember the last time that I worked with a scientist or engineer that put stock in anthropogenic climate change.

It's a Government manufactured crisis designed to generate tax dollars. There is absolutely no conclusive science that ties co2 levels to rise in temperature. It's a joke.

Check out this documentary... it does an excellent job of breaking down the farce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_T ... al_Warming

Cool. I'm a civil engineer, looking to move into bioengineering. My work is rather mundane. Very few engineers I know believe in CO2, except when they are getting paid to.

Nice to learn about closed systems from folks on the internet.

Thanks for the link.

[Metsfanmax]

That the upper atmosphere somehow absorbs this energy goes against the whole idea.

That is not what happening in the NASA article, and this is the danger of taking things out of context. It is true that the (dry) atmosphere is basically transparent to visible light. However, in a solar storm (coronal mass ejection), the interesting things that are emitted are primarily energetic particles like protons and electrons, energized to super-high speeds. Because they're so energetic, they don't get very far into the atmosphere before being deflected by some particle, and transferring their energy to them. This is the phenomenon that causes, for example, the northern lights. This is very different from the normal thermal emission that the Sun continuously produces.

"You see mostly the same amount of radiation except at the wavelengths where we know greenhouse gases have absorption bands."

Let's try your upper atmosphere analogy here.

"This heats up the upper atmosphere. But it's only carbon dioxide and other similar gases that can efficiently radiate that new energy back out. So they start doing that. And the gas cools down a little. Then, because the carbon dioxide molecules are now less energetic than their neighbors like nitrogen and oxygen, they'll bump into them, transferring the energy from the nitrogen molecule to the CO2 molecule. Then it will radiate it away."

Now let's change a few words. Upper to lower, nitrogen to H2O, and what do we have? We have you giving your own explanation for why the heat is not present and the radiation bands aren't seen.

So if your argument is that CO2 is cooling the atmosphere by radiating energy out from the lower atmosphere, why do space satellites see less radiation from CO2 now than they used to, at those emission bands? Shouldn't we see more radiation at those bands if CO2 is working hard to get rid of all that energy and shoot it out to space? Your answer to this seems to be that CO2 is efficient at trapping heat -- it's just that it then transfers that heat to water, and water emits it. This makes it hard to understand your argument, because it sounds like just above you're arguing that CO2 is only a good coolant but not good at warming. So I'd appreciate it if you could pick a consistent argument -- is carbon dioxide trapping outgoing heat, or isn't it?

CO2 blocks outgoing less energetic radiation from leaving the atmosphere, it does so at the nanosecond rate. Water vapor is ever present and readily absorbs the heat from the excited CO2 molecule. The water vapor is then transported up in the atmosphere and gives off the heat to space. Since water vapor emits a different wavelength than CO2, it will not be observed in the same spectrum that CO2 takes it in.

OK, so then let's say we agree that CO2 is good at trapping heat. Your hypothesis seems to be that CO2 is transferring that heat to water, and water is then emitting it into space. Do you have evidence for this hypothesis? Also, does this really make sense? The assumption you seem to be making to justify this is that "water is transported upward." Why is water transported upward, but not carbon dioxide? Do winds and updrafts only affect water?

This is the basis for the research by John Hopkins, et al, which determined that CO2's greenhouse effect is mitigated by water vapor present in the atmosphere.

Johns Hopkins is a university, not an author. Do you have a citation for a paper so that we can look at it and discuss it?

Further, while here, please explain the discrepancies between ocean temperature and the steadily increasing amount of heat present in your graph from a page back. Specifically, ocean temperatures have been in constant flux, while the graph shows a steady increase in heat content.

I don't know what you mean by "constant flux." There's always going to be cyclical variations, even if there's a steady forcing being added to the system. This is true just as much for the ocean as it is for the atmosphere. Anyway, ocean heat content is essentially just another name for temperature. The ocean heat content is measured by using floats that sink down below the surface and measure the temperature. Then you can infer the ocean heat content just by factoring in the heat capacity of water. So that Levitus et al. figure I showed is actually the result of direct measurements of temperature. It is just presented in a different form.

[patches70]

Most people have the ability to take a look at the ridiculous claims that he makes and realize that he has developed tunnel vision. He won't even consider the option that his alarmist views, regarding climate, could be wrong.

Not to mention Mets posted some data from NOAA a little bit back and NOAA was caught red handed flat out falsifying climate data to a massive degree to make the supposed effects appear worse.

Anything from NOAA should be instantly thrown out, IMO. If it's got NOAA on it then it isn't worth shit. Their climate data isn't science at all, it's political. When that shit happens it's no wonder people roll their eyes at the Mets of the world they attempt to get people to buy into their fear mongering.

[Metsfanmax]

Not to mention Mets posted some data from NOAA a little bit back and NOAA was caught red handed flat out falsifying climate data to a massive degree to make the supposed effects appear worse.

Source?

[patches70]

Not to mention Mets posted some data from NOAA a little bit back and NOAA was caught red handed flat out falsifying climate data to a massive degree to make the supposed effects appear worse.

Source?

Your kidding, right? There is no way you didn't hear about that news. If so, then you have a serious bias problem.

Anyway, since you asked-

Breitbart-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5997,d.eXY

Which predictably you'll probably have a problem with, so
Forbes-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5997,d.eXY

or, if you prefer, simply google "noaa falsifying climate data" and just pick your particular preferred propaganda outlet. Of course, your particular propaganda outlets you prefer would ignore such news as it's contrary to your particular brand of propaganda, but whatever.

Oh, and NASA was caught right up with NOAA as well, falsifying data.

You see Mets, for people to buy into your bullshit then you have to have a certain trust factor. I don't trust NOAA, or NASA since they've been caught doing something other than science. And that's the thing about trust, when it's lost it's hard to get back. That's why people like you need to tell people like Al Gore to shut the f*ck up, since he was the one going around saying the polar caps were going to be melted by 2013 and shit. It's stuff like this that makes people just say "You know, I just don't believe you".

And that, sir, is your biggest problem. You can quote scientific studies (that you didn't conduct yourself, BTW, but were told) and it won't make a difference, because the people putting out the data just aren't trustworthy. That's what happens when you mix science with politics.

[Metsfanmax]

Your kidding, right? There is no way you didn't hear about that news.

Of course I heard about the "news," but I wanted to see if you would indeed cite Steve Goddard, a random guy with a WordPress blog.

Problem is, even Judith Curry and Anthony Watts, two of the favorite sources for "skeptic" information on global warming, have called this guy out for simply making an incorrect claim and succinctly rebutted his claims. When even your preferred propaganda outlets say that this is wrong, that is worth paying attention to.

That's why people like you need to tell people like Al Gore to shut the f*ck up, since he was the one going around saying the polar caps were going to be melted by 2013 and shit.

Perhaps "people like you" should actually look into the claims they're making instead of just repeating whatever your favorite blogger told you. Al Gore mentioned one particular study that suggested that summer sea ice could be gone as early as around 2014. So he was actually (sort of) quoting a real scientific study instead of just pulling some number out of his ass. It is just that this particular study he mentioned predicted an earlier full summer melting than most other studies. Gore, noting this, did not predict that the ice would be gone by 2013 -- he just mentioned a study that suggested it was possible. So who exactly is it here that isn't trustworthy?

[patches70]

Perhaps "people like you" should actually look into the claims they're making instead of just repeating whatever your favorite blogger told you. Al Gore mentioned one particular study that suggested that summer sea ice could be gone as early as around 2014. So he was actually (sort of) quoting a real scientific study instead of just pulling some number out of his ass. It is just that this particular study he mentioned predicted an earlier full summer melting than most other studies. Gore, noting this, did not predict that the ice would be gone by 2013 -- he just mentioned a study that suggested it was possible. So who exactly is it here that isn't trustworthy?

People like me? Look dude, you are the parrot. I don't know, I don't care, I don't believe you, I don't trust you, I don't trust who you parrot, I don't trust your plan (or rather, the plans you parrot).

I wash my hands of all this, the alarmists and the deniers. I don't know who's right, I don't care because both sides are untrustworthy. So for me I'll just live my life the best I can and when people like you try and reach into my wallet to "save the world" I'll tell you to piss off.

You don't acknowledge that the very scientists you parrot have a vested interest that goes far beyond science for convincing everyone that global warming is a serious threat. Their very livelihoods rely on convincing people so they can continue to get more government grants. Money.

Then we get back into that trust issue, not to mention the more vocal assholes. You are far more pleasant that the really shrill alarmists. But just because you have a kinder softer tone doesn't make me believe you any more or less. To me you are just a useful parrot (puppet) to those who have vested interests in pushing global warming alarmism to pad their wallets. You sell yourself cheap, at least the bigwigs are looking to make million, maybe billions of dollars while regular people have to keep working their ass off to not just feed, clothe and house their families, but also work to save the planet, the polar bears, starving children everywhere, war on terrorists, crime, racism, undocumented workers, etc etc etc etc etc etc.

You don't see that this is bullshit? Maybe global warming (or whatever your calling it this week) is real and the effects are going to be as bad or worse then the experts say it's going to be (or try to convince everyone it's going to be so bad) but dude, the regular Joe has enough to worry about without you and your parrots trying to scheme up more ways to milk people of their hard earned money, time and sweat just to transfer that money to people who are nothing more than opportunists.

So take your pity party and cry to people who give a f*ck. And get in early on those carbon exchange companies early. If you're going to whore yourself you might as well get paid well for it!