Solar Minimum 2009, Global Cooling and the Record Breaking Winter

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,968
I'm afraid I do need to get spoon-fed. I'm joe public in Ireland not in the US. However, I take your point about the correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperatures.

Is this similar to the famous and now discounted hockey stick graph?

Bear with me on this, people are interested and looking in so you have an audience. Besides, Cassandra has said I can take it off topic.

Thanks
it's a good thing your opinions don't matter. The hockey stick graph is confirmed, not discounted. The alleged "discounting" was an invention of denier propaganda.

You didn't bother to fact-check the propaganda, so you believe in something that is false, i.e: the supposed discounting of the hockey stick graph.

Again, lucky for us you aren't in charge. Lucky for us the fate of the world doesn't rest on your judgement.

What the science says...

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
Is the hockey stick broken?

You may not like the conclusions I'm coming to regarding your judgement, but the fact remains that they are really well-founded. You have two major strikes against you:

You thought that peer-reviewed science ever predicted heatwaves in Ireland, based on no reason at all: FAIL
You thought that the hockey stick conclusion was discounted when in fact it was entirely confirmed: FAIL

Your radar as regards climate science is really, really far off. Can you provide me with any data to convince anyone otherwise. I want to be fair, but I'm not seeing much grounds for giving you any points.
 


Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,361
I'll help you again:

Show me a study from anywhere, anyone, IPCC etc, which proves the "Greenhouse" Effect's influence, EXPERIMENTALLY.

You know, it would be something like: temperatures of a volume of air with varying concentrations of CO2 200ppm, 300ppm, 400ppm etc at various heights above the surface of the earth.

The greatest joke of all at a recent presentation in UCC by Prof Ray Bates Meterologist, when one of the speakers from the floor (who seemed to be a lecturer) asked, how come the Greenhouse Effect is not verified Experimentally in ANY of the IPCC reports?

Prof Bates went uummm .... .. and in typical academic bluff, "yes a good question".

Of course the answer would be that, the Beer Lambert Law would come into play and we'd see no difference.

The lecture will be posted here: Welcome to the Understanding Science website

 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Ah excellent, an opposing perspective that's good (for democracy). Who is E. Michael Smith then, and why would his views be so damning about the NOAA (whoever they are).

Not being completely ignorant I did read that some existing data points for accumulation information on weather and temperatures were indeed based in urban areas, or besides airfields or dumps/power stations etc. So assume this would skew the figures somewhat?

This fence sitting is quite a pain in the ass you know :D
The question of whether it skews the figures is currently the source of some controversy. The heat island effect in established urban stations (such as St James' Park in London) seems to be unproblematic - while the absolute temperatures recorded by such stations are higher than the corresponding rural stations, the trend they show is the same:



That's reasonable, since London is stable in terms of urbanisation. The question arises as to whether actively urbanising areas are distorting the trend.

Phil Jones published a paper in 2008 showing that there were no significant effects from rapid urbanisation in North China either, but that paper has been challenged on the basis that Jones lost the location data for some of the stations, but included them on the basis that he viewed them as valid (for which he has given reasons). That doesn't necessarily change the conclusion of the paper, but obviously changes the certainty of the conclusion, and as far as I know Jones has an upcoming retraction in Nature - a good example of the usefulness of climate scepticism.

However, a more recent paper without lost data has shown the same lack of effect, which appears to vindicate Jones' original decision to include the lost-location station data.

On balance, then, the evidence shows no significant trend effects from urbanisation. Unfortunately, the uncertainty in the Jones paper is being claimed as somehow showing that there is a significant effect, which is something that obviously cannot be shown from the study, no matter how many stations are missing location data, and which also ignores the later study showing no effect.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Oh, and the explanation of the greenhouse effect itself was discovered by an Irish scientist, John Tyndall, 150 years ago. The measurements were done by Arrhenius in the 1890s - which was also the first 'prediction' of the possibility of global warming.

As for a recent experimental verification - here.

The science of the greenhouse effect itself is very simple. CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb infrared (Tyndall, 1859), which is what the Earth emits after being heated by incident sunshine, and whose escape to space cools the planet. The more infrared is absorbed by the atmosphere en route to space, the warmer the atmosphere gets. It's very very simple and very very well-established science. It is exactly the same effect as a blanket - by slowing the escape of heat, it increases the equilibrium temperature of whatever is inside the blanket.

Sensible climate scepticism doesn't involve ignoring very basic science, but on ensuring that people like Jones have their conclusions fully backed by subjecting their studies to genuinely rigorous analysis - essentially, an extended version of peer review, which is fully justified by the gravity of the issue involved. Whether that extended peer review is hostile or not is largely irrelevant - hostile is, if anything, better, as long as it is genuine review (Roy Spencer is a good example of a real sceptic, curiously not much cited by 'skeptics'). Unfortunately, we get relatively little of that kind of scepticism here.
 
Last edited:

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,968
I'll have you know that the evil overlords that are controlling my brain are illuminati lizard skull-faces, and one of them took a sneaky wee-wee in your drink yesterday while you weren't looking, hah-ha.
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
I'll have you know that the evil overlords that are controlling my brain are illuminati lizard skull-faces, and one of them took a sneaky wee-wee in your drink yesterday while you weren't looking, hah-ha.

42. Disturbed Members, Mentally Ill Followers.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,968
Does it mention anything about people believing that 18th century financiers are still pulling the strings in 2010?
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,361
Oh, and the explanation of the greenhouse effect itself was discovered by an Irish scientist, John Tyndall, 150 years ago. The measurements were done by Arrhenius in the 1890s - which was also the first 'prediction' of the possibility of global warming.

As for a recent experimental verification - here.

The science of the greenhouse effect itself is very simple. CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb infrared (Tyndall, 1859), which is what the Earth emits after being heated by incident sunshine, and whose escape to space cools the planet. The more infrared is absorbed by the atmosphere en route to space, the warmer the atmosphere gets. It's very very simple and very very well-established science. It is exactly the same effect as a blanket - by slowing the escape of heat, it increases the equilibrium temperature of whatever is inside the blanket.

Sensible climate scepticism doesn't involve ignoring very basic science, but on ensuring that people like Jones have their conclusions fully backed by subjecting their studies to genuinely rigorous analysis - essentially, an extended version of peer review, which is fully justified by the gravity of the issue involved. Whether that extended peer review is hostile or not is largely irrelevant - hostile is, if anything, better, as long as it is genuine review (Roy Spencer is a good example of a real sceptic, curiously not much cited by 'skeptics'). Unfortunately, we get relatively little of that kind of scepticism here.
I rest my case.

The experiment cited by IBIS is a total joke. So sad as to warrant pity.

The Greenhouse effect of course is a misnomer. What it should be called is the Infrared effect. What happens in a real Glass Greenhouse is convectional air or thermally agitated air is prevented from escaping and so the heat builds up.

It's quite sad for IBIS to have to quote Arrhenius and Tyndall from over 100 years ago. These guys didn't have Spectrometers then and were partly right. We all know CO2 absorbs IR energy.

How much would be the real effect of varying CO2 from 200ppm to 500ppm at various heights above the surface of the earth say (5m - 100m) with the only IR light source being the IR emitted from Tarmac or Concrete or dirt during the winter months and summer months.

Anyone who knows what an FTIR Spectrometer looks like will know that it has an IR light source, such as an electrically heated Ceramic filament which is very hot - well above the earth's average temperature of 15 deg Celcius. Most of the earth is water. The amount of IR light emitted from water at 15 deg celcius is negligable. High spec FTIR's have a Water Cooled source to prevent the spectrometer from over heating.

Sadly, poor IBIS fails again.

 

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
So, where were we again?

Mixed bag it seems. On the AGW side, Ibis continues on his quest for quietly reasoned informative posts. It helps that unlike the many other posters he's prepared to take on board issues and flaws in arguments and data from the his side.

Unfortunately feargach continues on his one-man mission to insult just about everyone who opposes his perspective. How difficult it must be for someone with the knowledge and higher faculties that this greater deity possesses to deal with mere simpletons and eternal failures like myself, whose crime is to opine doubt and spread unfounded rumours about the glorious and on-so-expensive AGW mission.

Then on the opposing side we have son-of-feargach Destiny's Soldier, who while refraining from the personal attacks of feargach, nevertheless finds the ennui of having to spoon feed muppets like myself who for some reason, are incapable of coming up with a graph that correlates man made emissions and global temperatures over the last 100 years. And, seeing as I don't have one in my back pocket, then obviously his logic is flawless.

In the meantime, my senses will get overloaded with you tubes, graphs and killer websites. I can't help but feeling that the average person is all confused by the current impasse, what, with the weather being so not warm and rather cold (Irish perspective and irrelevant I know feargach), that we just don't get this AGW stuff, until of course it hurts us in the pocket....

So my perspective is this. I think I've said it at some point before, but we should have a carbon tax in this country based on consumption of fossil fuels. However, I would recommend that the revenues gained, rather than financing our systemic banking system, should be ring-fenced to wean us off our carbon fixation by developing alternative energy resources (SoI for example). Based on Ibis's charts, we're going to need all the resources we have to help those countries less fortunate than our own...
 

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
Uh, if you hear reports about some guy in south county Dublin going around screaming 'the graphs, the graphs...'
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
Does it mention anything about people believing that 18th century financiers are still pulling the strings in 2010?
Well explain the 2nd Second Great Depression.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
I rest my case.

The experiment cited by IBIS is a total joke. So sad as to warrant pity.

The Greenhouse effect of course is a misnomer. What it should be called is the Infrared effect. What happens in a real Glass Greenhouse is convectional air or thermally agitated air is prevented from escaping and so the heat builds up.

It's quite sad for IBIS to have to quote Arrhenius and Tyndall from over 100 years ago. These guys didn't have Spectrometers then and were partly right. We all know CO2 absorbs IR energy.

How much would be the real effect of varying CO2 from 200ppm to 500ppm at various heights above the surface of the earth say (5m - 100m) with the only IR light source being the IR emitted from Tarmac or Concrete or dirt during the winter months and summer months.

Anyone who knows what an FTIR Spectrometer looks like will know that it has an IR light source, such as an electrically heated Ceramic filament which is very hot - well above the earth's average temperature of 15 deg Celcius. Most of the earth is water. The amount of IR light emitted from water at 15 deg celcius is negligable. High spec FTIR's have a Water Cooled source to prevent the spectrometer from over heating.

Sadly, poor IBIS fails again.
Er, you're claiming that the earth doesn't radiate in the infrared? Or that it does so only from certain bits like tarmac and concrete?

How do you think the Earth's absorbed solar radiation is emitted back into space?



Possibly I'm wrong here - possibly you're not making such a ludicrous claim, but it sure looks like it.

Earth absorbs solar radiation, and emits it in the infrared. Here's a picture of the infrared picked up by satellites:



Even the lower end of the scale there is 70 W/m2.

CO2 and the other greenhouse gases absorb that IR energy on its way out to space, which makes the atmosphere warmer than it otherwise would be. CO2 is relatively effective, because the wavelengths it absorbs are very close to the ones the Earth mostly emits - and also because those absorbed wavelengths are amongst those not absorbed by water vapour, which is Earth's primary atmospheric 'greenhouse' constituent.

The exact amount of extra energy being absorbed is hard to measure, but appears to be 0.8 W/m2. That doesn't sound like a lot, and it isn't - global warming is a very slow process, pushing temperatures up by a fractions of a degree per decade (0.36 degrees over the last three decades - that's 0.012 degrees annually). Unfortunately, that puts us in the position of the proverbial frog in the saucepan - the heat's being turned up slowly enough that nothing dramatic happens, and many people will sit there croaking happily for a good few years yet. However, on the timescale of major environmental changes, this is still extremely fast - too fast for a lot of ecosystems to adapt, and faster, more global, and more extreme than any change since humans first developed agriculture.
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,037
Destiny's Child said:

"What happens in a real Glass Greenhouse is convectional air or thermally agitated air is prevented from escaping and so the heat builds up. "

Can you cite the scientific evidence for this?
 

fiannafailure

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,066
Destiny's Child said:

"What happens in a real Glass Greenhouse is convectional air or thermally agitated air is prevented from escaping and so the heat builds up. "

Can you cite the scientific evidence for this?
What DS meant to say was that if you continue to put energy into a system faster than the system can lose energy, it gets warmer.

Sound familiar
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
What DS meant to say was that if you continue to put energy into a system faster than the system can lose energy, it gets warmer.

Sound familiar
I'm afraid DS' point does sound familiar, but only because I've been through it before with him. What he means is - more or less literally - that there's no roof on the sky.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,037
"Real Glass Greenhouse is... convectional air or thermally agitated air ...prevented from escaping and so the heat builds up"

DS does not believe in infra-red radiation, then?

Does DS stand for De Selby, the mad scientist in the Third Policeman?
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
After just listening to the radio1 weather forecast for tomorrow I was struck by what seems like an odd prediction... " temperatures will be between 5 and 8 C but will remain at 0 C where fog persists" It appears as proof positive that condensed water vapour is extremely effective at reflecting heat away from the land/sea surface, it then follows that cloud would be an even greater reflector. Global cooling? just check the Met office world satellite sequence and prepare for one of the coolest summers yet.
Clouds reflect both incoming radiation and outgoing radiation. Clouds at different levels have different effects:



Uncondensed water vapour in the atmospheric column is of course simply a greenhouse 'gas' - and a warmer atmosphere means more water vapour can be held before clouds condense.
 


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top