Climate Change due to Global Warming – a hoax?

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by cbacba

Sounds ok if you're assuming around 3/4 of a w/m^2 of power absorption over 58 years. A megaton is supposed to be about 4.18E+15 Joules. Assuming an average of 1 megaton per bomb, which is probably way on the high end as most are not strategic in the arsenals, this amount is the equivalent of about 49 million strategic nuclear bombs. Nuclear arsenals have never had more than perhaps 70,000 nukes with an average far less than 1 megaton.

As a comparison in that 58 years, the amount of energy reaching the southern hemisphere and south pole compared to the northern hemisphere and north pole amounts to around 5.1E+24 Joules which is equivalent to about 1.2 billion megaton bombs. The difference here is the difference is the summer time distance to the sun for the southern hemisphere versus to the northern hemisphere summer time distance. It's a rough difference in incoming solar insolation due to the eccentricity of earths orbit which is closer during southern hemisphere summer versus northern hemisphere mid summer.

Now, the problem with your argument, other than the lack of context for the amount of energy, is that you assume this 3/4 w/m^2 of power is actually being absorbed into the earth's surface/atmosphere in the form of heat, raising the temperature. The short answer is that it isn't. Were it true. If it were, that would be about 380 million calories of heat per m^2. The atmosphere has about 11million grams / m^2. That means the atmosphere only would have heated by 140 degrees K since it's about 1/4 calorie per g K. If one were to do this for a uniform temperature increase say for the ocean and atmosphere of 10 K for both, then one would have the atmosphere and about 370 meters of ocean depth increase by 10 degrees kelvin - based upon this 3/4W/m^2 being absorbed. Remember now that the difference in SH and NH energy due to the insolation change is a hundred times this.

Consequently, your impressive number has no more validity than my impressive number = 1.0E+110 and my number is lots bigger than your's. Neither have anything to do with anything physical concerning the earth. Your number is meaningless like mine because it doesn't represent anything. What is absorbed in IR radiation is re-emitted as IR at that wavelength and other wavelengths, converted to thermal energy often prior to reradiation and if not, creates warmer air that moves upward as convection. Also, an ideal gas absorbing heat in a system such as earth's atmosphere tends to be a bit constrained to constant pressure, but really isn't limited to constant volume, meaning that temperature doesn't always have to increase with additional energy.

The net result is that significant changes in ghg concentrations will result in virtually undetectable variations in temperature due to massive negative feedbacks that must exist for the earth system to have any chance of stability because everything else in the system varies significantly over time. One sees pyramids setting on their bases, not on their tips. That's because systems with 'tipping' points as presumed by and promoted by the alarmists don't exist in nature because nature isn't a sheet of paper with a few equations written down with approximations, simplifications, assumptions reduced to the minimum to permit it to be comprehended.

1. My figure is true, yours is BS. 2. it is now increasing by 0.85W/m^2 so that shows our temperature is increasing exponentially still since it is higher than 0.75W/m^2. So that shows we are still increasing the energy absorption i.e. burning fossil fuel. 3. The continual increase shows we haven't hit our temperature equilibrium (if we froze the level/amount of gas i.e no more burning fossil fuel). 4. The ocean has a far greater amount of molecules than the atmosphere and the depths range of up to 5 km. 5. The ice needs to absorb the latent heat energy to melt. so that is why the ice without land underneath it is melting fast, The Antartic is gaining ice from snow that wasn't happening before because it was too cold. It was essentially a desert with far less precipitation than the Sahara Desert. Now there is extra heat, then the air can contain extra moisture 6. Temperatures around the poles have increased by nearly 3 degrees.

Don't you think 340m for average ocean depth is ridiculously low? And besides that the pressure gets far stronger as you go down meaning the density changes. There is no need to beat back observed changes by simple maths.

[flogger]

OK Windguy and draypoker if you are so sure of your position. Why do you so fear debate by resorting to personal abuse or sarcasm.

Heres a challenge for you both.

Find me one single Peer review study (that means stuff containing REAL science BTW) citing human activity as the primary cause of global warming.

Good luck !

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by flogger

Heres a challenge for you both.

Find me one single Peer review study (that means stuff containing REAL science BTW) citing human activity as the primary cause of global warming.

Good luck !

Mathews, H.D. – Natural and anthropogenic climate change….
Meehl M.F.- Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings in 20th century climate…
Mitchell, J.F.B – Detection of climate change and attribution of causes…..
Rind, D. – The relative importance of solar and anthropogenic forcing of climate change..
Santer, B.D. – Identification of anthropogenic climate change…
Sexton, D.M.H and others – Detection of anthropogenic climate change…
Scott, P.A. – Attribution of regional scale temperatures to anthropogenic and natural causes….
Vecchi, G.A. – Weakening of tropical Pacific atmospheric circulation due to anthropogenic forcing…
Levitus, J. – Anthropogenic warming of the Earth’s climate system.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Windguy

1. My figure is true, yours is BS. 2. it is now increasing by 0.85W/m^2 so that shows our temperature is increasing exponentially still since it is higher than 0.75W/m^2. So that shows we are still increasing the energy absorption i.e. burning fossil fuel. 3. The continual increase shows we haven't hit our temperature equilibrium (if we froze the level/amount of gas i.e no more burning fossil fuel). 4. The ocean has a far greater amount of molecules than the atmosphere and the depths range of up to 5 km. 5. The ice needs to absorb the latent heat energy to melt. so that is why the ice without land underneath it is melting fast, The Antartic is gaining ice from snow that wasn't happening before because it was too cold. It was essentially a desert with far less precipitation than the Sahara Desert. Now there is extra heat, then the air can contain extra moisture 6. Temperatures around the poles have increased by nearly 3 degrees.

Don't you think 340m for average ocean depth is ridiculously low? And besides that the pressure gets far stronger as you go down meaning the density changes. There is no need to beat back observed changes by simple maths.

Wrong,

My number isn't BS, it's just a number not related to anything. Your's is the same thing, just a number not related to anything real either. My point is that your number does not indicate some increase of energy which has been absorbed over and above what supposedly was the energy being absorbed normally.

The numbers provided did not claim to be representative of actual depths but were chosen to give round numbers and keep it simple. Also, there is plenty of arguments as to just how fast the ocean adjusts and it would seem that 300M would be fairly adequate for what might change in only 50 years and there are thermoclines around there anyway. Besides, if you'd rather have 10 times the depth, 3km for an average, then divide the increase in T by 10 and you'll be roughly in the ballpark. Now show me where there's any reports showing the mean sea temperature (not surface T) of the whole ocean has increased by 1 degree.

Hmm, the density of water changes with depth in any consequential way? Maybe you should analyze the word 'incompressible' for some flaw or another.

As for snow, it tends to happen. One loses ice when the snowfall is less than the sublimation rate + melting rate. One tends to gain ice when the snowfall is greater than the sublimation rate + melting rate. If the snowfall is less than the sublimation rate even if no melting occurs - you will lose ice even when it's cold.

[draypoker]

Originally Posted by flogger

OK Windguy and draypoker if you are so sure of your position. Why do you so fear debate by resorting to personal abuse or sarcasm.

Heres a challenge for you both.

Find me one single Peer review study (that means stuff containing REAL science BTW) citing human activity as the primary cause of global warming.

Good luck !

I will answer you if you ever say anything sensible.

[flogger]

I will answer you if you ever say anything sensible.

Post me a link to any of those Peer reviews alleging primary human responsibility for climate change. You claim scientific integrity supports your view so lets see it ?

Is that sensible enough for you ?

[flogger]

Mathews, H.D. – Natural and anthropogenic climate change….
Meehl M.F.- Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings in 20th century climate…
Mitchell, J.F.B – Detection of climate change and attribution of causes…..
Rind, D. – The relative importance of solar and anthropogenic forcing of climate change..
Santer, B.D. – Identification of anthropogenic climate change…
Sexton, D.M.H and others – Detection of anthropogenic climate change…
Scott, P.A. – Attribution of regional scale temperatures to anthropogenic and natural causes….
Vecchi, G.A. – Weakening of tropical Pacific atmospheric circulation due to anthropogenic forcing…
Levitus, J. – Anthropogenic warming of the Earth’s climate system.

Errr ... link please. A list of scientists is hardly an insight into the content or validity of thier reports now is it

I'd be interested to see if ANY of those reports allege primary human culpability for climate change or are in actuality valid peer review studies anyway. So lets see the facts.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by flogger

Errr ... link please. A list of scientists is hardly an insight into the content of thier reports now is it

Well what you asked for was "one single Peer review study (that means stuff containing REAL science BTW) citing human activity as the primary cause of global warming."
I listed several. You didn't ask for an insight into the content of their papers but wouldn't you do better to read them rather than take someone else's opinion?

Originally Posted by flogger

I'll be interested to see if ANY of those reports allege primary human culpability for climate change

See advice above.

Originally Posted by flogger

or are in actuality valid peer review studies.

See advice above.

Originally Posted by flogger

So lets see the facts.

The ball's in your court.

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by cbacba

Wrong,

My number isn't BS, it's just a number not related to anything. Your's is the same thing, just a number not related to anything real either. My point is that your number does not indicate some increase of energy which has been absorbed over and above what supposedly was the energy being absorbed normally.

The numbers provided did not claim to be representative of actual depths but were chosen to give round numbers and keep it simple. Also, there is plenty of arguments as to just how fast the ocean adjusts and it would seem that 300M would be fairly adequate for what might change in only 50 years and there are thermoclines around there anyway. Besides, if you'd rather have 10 times the depth, 3km for an average, then divide the increase in T by 10 and you'll be roughly in the ballpark. Now show me where there's any reports showing the mean sea temperature (not surface T) of the whole ocean has increased by 1 degree.

Hmm, the density of water changes with depth in any consequential way? Maybe you should analyze the word 'incompressible' for some flaw or another.

As for snow, it tends to happen. One loses ice when the snowfall is less than the sublimation rate + melting rate. One tends to gain ice when the snowfall is greater than the sublimation rate + melting rate. If the snowfall is less than the sublimation rate even if no melting occurs - you will lose ice even when it's cold.

So your trying to say the ocean just absorbs huge amounts of energy like some black hole and doesn't give any back is normal?

Your whole theory of increased CO2 cooling the planet falls flat on its backside because the ocean is heating up, The stratosphere is cooling down, Observed temperature changes are the polar opposite and the night, winter and polar regions are heating up the fastest.

Since climate science is so boring, lets invent a few out there theories as to why all of this is happening?

They are all observed changes with no calculations. CO2 is rising (observed change) and methane is rising (observed change) unless you want to rip up all ice core science and basic gas measurements since the 1950's.

Mann - 1998 shows the forcing of CO2 and other gases. We have every single link in the chain of observed events covered.

Climate change is solved "beyond reasonable doubt". The scientists who believe in it have moved on to finding out the exact levels of destruction or put some real science to some ridiculous theories out there. No matter even if they are true, they have to be put into context before ever being legitimised as possible alternatives.

To get rid of AGW as a theory is to frame someone for murder in an intricate fashion, going so far as to placing their DNA on the corpse. No Joe Average can pick holes in AGW unless they are a sci fi writer or watch too much Star Trek and taking LSD at the same time.

[Windguy]

http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/....html#interest

For your information.