Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Like always you play by the disinfo rules and accuse 'the otherside' that of which you are guilty of.

Why must you always single me out on these threads?

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
a reply to: Greven

I don't think many people disregard the whole greenhouse theory. Unless they mean that a greenhouse technically operates differently.

Keep this in mind;
Water accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Humans influence the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere to a much greater degree than CO2.

Water content varies considerably in the atmosphere, yet never gives rise to catastrophic feedback effects.

If the only effect of CO2 is a very mild warming, with no feedback effects, then no one really cares.

A website that has been linked repeatedly on this site (and even in this thread by the OP) in support of skepticism is Principa Scientific, which claims there is no greenhouse effect.

When I asked the OP whether the OP supports that idea, this was a reply I got:

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Greven

Green house gas is a term used to scare people.

Carbon dioxide is a natural occurring gas-byproduct and catalysis for growth.

Yes, I am aware that water vapor has a larger effect at present:

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: KoranBeliever
a reply to: Greven

Can you take 10 minutes to read this short report from the CIA and tell me your thoughts?
If anything would be cause for fear it would be global cooling.
Can you show me anything that would indicate that C02 is anything more than a small contributor to any warming that the earth has experienced?
www.climatemonitor.it...

Can you take 1.5 minutes to review this which predates that 1974 report by 16 years:

There is no global cooling. Late frosts unsurprisingly happen in the Dakotas, for example in 2012. Mostly they're dealing with drought right now.

The physics are very simple - here's what a satellite from 1970 recorded:

CO2 is not as potent as H2O overall because it is not as common in the atmosphere; the difference is that CO2 hangs around for a very long time, while H2O vanishes quickly. Given that by calculations the Earth should be freezing in the absence of a greenhouse effect, what do you suppose put that water vapor in the atmosphere to begin with?

Please note that the prior calculations show that the Stefan-Boltzmann law applies just fine to the Earth. Please also consider that, since the Earth should be 255°K, water should be frozen.

So, what caused the Earth to be warm enough such that water vapor could occur in the atmosphere?

a reply to: Greven

If you look at the daytime temperature of the moon, it's around 250 degree F. That is hot enough to vaporize water.

Even with a pure mix of nitrogen and oxygen, the atmosphere would still warm up. When the Earth's surface is heated, energy is distributed kinetically 1000s of times faster than radiatively.

You can confirm this by the fact that a tank of nitrogen can be heated, it just takes longer. Greenhouse gasses speed up the process by effectively 'extending' the the tanks surface area.

When you mention Earth being 255k, that is without any atmosphere at all.

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet
Yes, it gets quite warm in direct sunlight. The moon is almost airless, so there's little to moderate the temperature. It also gets very cold on the opposite side of the moon at this time. Further, it takes time for water to warm or cool - and the Earth rotates. You see with Arctic and Antarctic ice that it takes considerable exposure over time to melt during their respective summers. Water vapor does not stick around in the atmosphere very long either, though it is continually being replenished by various mechanisms. The problem with assigning the state of Earth to water vapor is that atmospheric content of water vapor is in part determined by temperature. For example, how did it go from ice to water in the first place?

This isn't really how greenhouse gases work. They do not 'extend' the surface area, but rather prevent energy from radiating further. Recall my calculations from earlier, which I quote below.


When I mention Earth being 255°K, I'm saying that's what the whole of the atmosphere is as demonstrated in my prior post:

originally posted by: Greven
If we did not have greenhouse gases, the Earth as a whole would be approximately 255°K - below freezing. That's for today - the Sun is thought to have increased in its output as it has aged. Now, that 255°K would be for the whole of the atmosphere. Pressure determines mass; a good rule of thumb is that 50% of the remaining mass of the atmosphere will be below every 5.6km increase in altitude. Thus, 50% of atmospheric mass is within about 5.6km of the surface, 75% is within about 11.2km, 87.5% is within about 16.8km, and so on. More than 98% of the Earth's atmospheric mass is below about 33.6km.

UAH for example defines 'lower troposphere' to be from near the surface up to about 8km. Temperature falls with altitude above the surface in the troposphere (the lowest 75% of the atmosphere), as anyone who has been on top of a mountain will understand; this lapse rate is about -6.49 °K/km. Given a mean surface temperature of 288°K, you can guess the temperature for 3/4ths of the atmosphere and about how much mass it makes up. Let's do it roughly by taking the start temperatures and saying that's how much a particular section is (this is slightly inaccurate):
00km: 288.00°K @ 0%
01km: 281.51°K @ 11.3% * 288.00°K = 32.54400°K
02km: 275.02°K @ 10.2% * 281.51°K = 28.71402°K
03km: 268.53°K @ 09.3% * 275.02°K = 25.57686°K
04km: 262.04°K @ 08.4% * 268.53°K = 22.55652°K
05km: 255.55°K @ 07.5% * 262.04°K = 19.65300°K
06km: 249.06°K @ 06.7% * 255.55°K = 17.12185°K
07km: 242.57°K @ 06.1% * 249.06°K = 15.19266°K
08km: 236.08°K @ 05.4% * 242.57°K = 13.09878°K
09km: 229.59°K @ 04.8% * 236.08°K = 11.33184°K
10km: 223.10°K @ 04.2% * 229.59°K = 09.64278°K
11km: 216.65°K @ 03.8% * 223.10°K = 08.47780°K
77.7% of atmospheric mass totals to 203.91011°K

From 11km to 20km is the tropopause, where it's roughly the same temperature and where most remaining mass is:
Pause: 216.65°K @ 18.1% * 216.65°K = 39.21365°K
18.1% of atmospheric mass adds 39.21365°K

This leaves about 4.26% of atmospheric mass unaccounted for; the stratosphere is above the troposphere (by some definitions it includes the relatively constant tropopause) and actually goes up in temperature with height, averaging about 250.15°K. It also makes up almost all of the remaining atmospheric mass.
4.2% of atmospheric mass adds 10.5063°K

The total then is 253.63006°K, though it should be 255°K by the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation; probably this discrepancy is the stratospheric portion (warmer 9-11km range in some latitudes) or small errors in rounding from these calculations... but it's pretty close.

As you can see, different portions of the atmosphere are cooler or warmer than that 255°K; the lowest portion of atmosphere is at a balmy 288°K. The highest portion of atmosphere within the troposphere is a cool 216.65°K. As a whole, when accounting for temperature and proportion of mass, the atmosphere is about 255°K.

a reply to: Greven

Are you saying then, that without greenhouse gasses, the atmosphere would be a uniform 255k? I don't see how that would be possible with a pressure gradient involved. There is only one heat sources and different pressures require different energy input to maintain thermal parity.

Mars also gets very hot, yet has ice caps. The only reason they melt on Earth is greater tilt and warm air. They do not ever get direct sunlight.

Water does not need very much time to sublimate or vaporize. It happens at the microscopic surface level. A snowflake can sublimate into water vapor without melting.

Greenhouse gasses preform the same function as the surface of the Earth, they absorb radiation and turn it into kinetic energy or vice versa. This does create a longer path for radiation to escape when the atmospheric concentration goes up. There's nothing wrong with looking at the Earth's surface as solidified greenhouse gasses. Or looking at greenhouse gasses as a vaporized extension of Earth's surface.

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet
You should probably read this post by Dr. Spencer.

Mars is much further away than the Moon and has a thicker atmosphere; it gets above freezing but not hot compared to Earth at its equator. The ice caps it has are primarily frozen CO2 - something that doesn't happen naturally on Earth.

As I recall, sublimation occurs mostly on mountains - lower pressure and drier winds.

Kinetic energy...? In Dr. Spencer's post above, he mentions a little experiment. First, take an IR thermometer outside on a clear day and point it directly upwards (not at the Sun). Second, point it at a 45° angle. The second reading should be warmer than the first. This demonstrates the infrared radiation emitted by greenhouse gases coming back towards the Earth.

If you're familiar with angled armor, perhaps this might make sense... a projectile of sufficient and speed size impacting the armor at a perpendicular angle is likely to penetrate the armor, while one that strikes at a 45° angle is more likely to bounce off. In this analogy, the IR thermometer is measuring what bounces off - less bounces means lower temperature.

a reply to: Greven

The IR experiment described shows is that if you measure the atmosphere through a much thicker portion, then there is a thicker layer of greenhouse gasses to send back IR. So yes, that proves that there is a greenhouse effect. But, the question is how much?

If you point the IR meter at an angle that effectively doubles the thickness of the atmosphere, you could get a rough estimate of CO2 contribution. First take the increase of IR, then separate out water and other gasses.

I believe CO2 is about 2% - 5% of the total greenhouse effect. So if you can measure a 10 degree increase with 2x atmosphere thickness, then you would know that doubling CO2 would increase overall temperature by about half a degree at most.

Without any catastrophic feedback effects (which would have happened before in the past) AGW doesn't amount to anything significant.

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jrod

Entire solar system is heating up! Scientists blame solar warming
www.space.news...

Not is a "camp" just looking at the money and recognizing this has happened before. And it happened before we had the industrial revolution.

I would love not to have gas stations, natural gas furnaces and coal fired gen plants. But in the real world we "need" this dirty power. And whether the tech is not there yet or is being restricted ( I vote for restricted) we have little control because we do not individually have the $$$ to push for what I think is right.

Separated we do as we are told, together we could change the status quo.

Your "source" uses an ATS thread from 2006 as its "source"...

This is dishonest. The link lists two sites as sources, not just this one.
this is the other one, which in fact is listed before the ATS one:
www.theeventchronicle.com...#

You are completely right.... and that source's "source" is...

ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.co.uk...

A UFO Sightings Hot Spot blog.

Great sources

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jrod

Entire solar system is heating up! Scientists blame solar warming
www.space.news...

Not is a "camp" just looking at the money and recognizing this has happened before. And it happened before we had the industrial revolution.

I would love not to have gas stations, natural gas furnaces and coal fired gen plants. But in the real world we "need" this dirty power. And whether the tech is not there yet or is being restricted ( I vote for restricted) we have little control because we do not individually have the $$$ to push for what I think is right.

Separated we do as we are told, together we could change the status quo.

Your "source" uses an ATS thread from 2006 as its "source"...

This is dishonest. The link lists two sites as sources, not just this one.
this is the other one, which in fact is listed before the ATS one:
www.theeventchronicle.com...#

You are completely right.... and that source's "source" is...

ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.co.uk...

A UFO Sightings Hot Spot blog.

Great sources

which quotes Dr. Mike Lockwood from the Rutherford Appleton National Laboratories in California as their source.
He has a Bsc, and a PHD, and has also worked at NASA and the University of Southampton. He is an expert in variations in the magnetic fields of the Sun, interplanetary space, and the Earth and in general solar influence on global and regional climate. He has also served as the Chair of the Council of EISCAT and as a Council member for the British Natural Environment Research Council. He's won at least 6 awards in this field, and is considered one of the worlds foremost experts in it.

so ya, great source indeed.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Al Gore 'profiting' from climate change agenda
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Plenty of people profit from it; don't kid yourself.

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jrod

Entire solar system is heating up! Scientists blame solar warming
www.space.news...

Not is a "camp" just looking at the money and recognizing this has happened before. And it happened before we had the industrial revolution.

I would love not to have gas stations, natural gas furnaces and coal fired gen plants. But in the real world we "need" this dirty power. And whether the tech is not there yet or is being restricted ( I vote for restricted) we have little control because we do not individually have the $$$ to push for what I think is right.

Separated we do as we are told, together we could change the status quo.

Your "source" uses an ATS thread from 2006 as its "source"...

This is dishonest. The link lists two sites as sources, not just this one.
this is the other one, which in fact is listed before the ATS one:
www.theeventchronicle.com...#

You are completely right.... and that source's "source" is...

ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.co.uk...

A UFO Sightings Hot Spot blog.

Great sources

which quotes Dr. Mike Lockwood from the Rutherford Appleton National Laboratories in California as their source.
He has a Bsc, and a PHD, and has also worked at NASA and the University of Southampton. He is an expert in variations in the magnetic fields of the Sun, interplanetary space, and the Earth and in general solar influence on global and regional climate. He has also served as the Chair of the Council of EISCAT and as a Council member for the British Natural Environment Research Council. He's won at least 6 awards in this field, and is considered one of the worlds foremost experts in it.

so ya, great source indeed.

Which they don't even source.... your sources source doesn't even show a source. Because its a blog page written by a UFO enthusiast.

"There's a study by Dr. Mike Lockwood from Rutherford Appleton National Laboratories, in California. Dr. Lockwood has been investigating the Sun."

He's not even listed as a source because they literally just namedrop him without linking to his work, without mentioning his methodology, without showcasing his data and without explaining what his outcomes were.

a reply to: SudoNim

While we were celebrating our Independence Day on July 4th, Summit Station in Greenland may have experienced the coldest July temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere at -33°C (-27.4°F). Much of Greenland has been colder-than-normal for the year so far and has had record or near record levels of accumulated snow and ice since the fall of last year. The first week of this month was especially brutal in Greenland resulting in the record low July temperature and it also contributed to an uptick in snow and ice extent - despite the fact that it is now well into their summer season.

www.vencoreweather.com...

a reply to: birdonwire

Is this supposed to be aimed at something I've said? Or did you just fall asleep at the keyboard.

It might be worth actually using your own words rather than just randomly copy and pasting articles you find on google.