World on course for catastrophic 6° rise

[Startraveler]

Where did you discover that??? All we do is radiate heat - we are 36.6 C degrees hot and the atmosphere is usually 10 degrees or so colder. When it becomes too warm, we release sweat, it evaporates and cools us down. The entire thermal regulation of our body is based on IR emission! If the medium is too cold, we radiate too much and die of hypothermia.

You make the point I'm making but seemingly don't realize it. Your continue to refer to conductive and convective processes ("insulating" oneself in a coat, releasing heat through evaporation, etc) and even specifically refer to the fact that the human body releases heat through interaction with a medium.

The earth can't release heat to space through evaporation or by direct conduction. It isn't in a medium. It absorbs radiation, it re-emits radiation.

On the other hand, Earth surface DOES NOT cool itself through radiating IR at all. It cools itself by heating the very bottom layer of the air - which becomes lighter and lifts up according to Archimedes Law, and colder layers come instead of it. Earth is a large heat pump. The radiation happens to open space from the top layers of the atmosphere, not from the surface directly.

No kidding. That's the entire basis of climate science. The composition of the atmosphere affects the height of the radiative layer (i.e. the layer of atmosphere that's radiating back into space). Temperatures below that layer are higher than the blackbody radiating temperature one would calculate based on the incoming solar energy absorbed on the earth. Thus the surface temperature (the thing human beings care about) is warmer than the radiating layer and can get even warmer if a changing atmospheric composition pushes that layer upwards.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Startraveler

[MARAB0D]

You make the point I'm making but seemingly don't realize it. Your continue to refer to conductive and convective processes ("insulating" oneself in a coat, releasing heat through evaporation, etc) and even specifically refer to the fact that the human body releases heat through interaction with a medium.

The earth can't release heat to space through evaporation or by direct conduction. It isn't in a medium. It absorbs radiation, it re-emits radiation.

No kidding. That the entire basis of climate science. The composition of the atmosphere affects the height of the radiative layer (i.e. the layer of atmosphere that's radiating back into space). Temperatures below that layer are higher than the blackbody radiating temperature one would calculate based on the incoming solar energy absorbed on the earth. Thus the surface temperature (the thing human beings care about) is warmer than the radiating layer and can get even warmer if a changing atmospheric composition pushes that layer upwards.

I can word absolutely anything, the matter remains to take a next step - to provide the equations. Of this I know PV/T=const as well as that a gradient of temperatures is an essential condition of ANY heat transfer whatsoever. We have Earth versus Space system. It is balanced, amount of heat in is equal to amount of heat out. This is the principle point - if any (ANY!) evidence was ever provided that this heat balance is about to be destroyed, then there would be worthwhile to look the the reasons of this destruction. Otherwise it is all catching the black cat in a dark room. The fact so far is that the temperatures on the planet are not anyhow higher than they were historically even before humans appeared on it. In fact they are COLDER. There is no abnormal heating at all, as the data for 400,000 (courtesy QM) demonstrates. We at the moment are on average over 2 degrees below the point we were 8000 years ago.

I have to repeat myself - we are discussing not a physical reality, not a scientific fact, but the personal concerns about the possible future of 31 climatologists and their hypothesis about this future, based on their own level of understanding the fundamental sciences, which by themselves are not related to climatology anyhow. They are neither Physicists not Chemists, they are Climatologists - so you may have noticed, i am not really touching the climate issue by itself, I am not a specialist. All I am talking about is the ways how they substantiate their points of view.

[Mattshark]

sigh... he did address the paper. but don't worry, i looked it out for you seeing as you obviously missed it.

sigh..... If you think that is addressing the paper in the slightest then you are in no position to judge.

The fact so far is that the temperatures on the planet are not anyhow higher than they were historically even before humans appeared on it. In fact they are COLDER.

Well done on producing a straw man argument.

[questionmark]

time to go back to school! Thermophysical properties have nothing to do with inner molecular oscillation frequencies, which result in IR absorption at specific wavelengthes! The latter is rather a Chemical or Quantum Mechanics property than one from Thermodynamics.

Instead of spouting crap could you please show a reference to that?

[MARAB0D]

Instead of spouting crap could you please show a reference to that?

Reference to what? Mate, if you do not know the difference between thermodynamics of gases an their molecular properties, you won't accept any references at all. A hint: the first one is about the gases and the other one is about the chemical bonds on molecular level. Belong to different sciences. Your article was about using CO2 as a heat-carrier, not about its ability to absorb IR. You were explained the difference - and the difference is the same as between a horse and a sea horse, if you still dont get it.

[questionmark]

Reference to what? Mate, if you do not know the difference between thermodynamics of gases an their molecular properties, you won't accept any references at all. A hint: the first one is about the gases and the other one is about the chemical bonds on molecular level. Belong to different sciences. Your article was about using CO2 as a heat-carrier, not about its ability to absorb IR. You were explained the difference - and the difference is the same as between a horse and a sea horse, if you still dont get it.

Reference please

[Startraveler]

This is the principle point - if any (ANY!) evidence was ever provided that this heat balance is about to be destroyed, then there would be worthwhile to look the the reasons of this destruction. Otherwise it is all catching the black cat in a dark room.

Who is claiming this? Rising surface temperatures don't indicate the earth's "heat balance is about to be destroyed."

...31 climatologists and their hypothesis about this future, based on their own level of understanding the fundamental sciences, which by themselves are not related to climatology anyhow. They are neither Physicists not Chemists, they are Climatologists

The few climate scientists I personally interacted with in a university setting (at least one of which was an IPCC author) were all physicists or geophysicists (e.g. Ph.D work in oceanography, etc), although I know one had done his undergrad work in biochemistry. The idea that climatology is some made-up field pursued by people without rigorous training in physics, chemistry, or geoscience is absurd. I spent most of my science-related time in the physics department but these guys (operating out of the geophysics department, which was separate) were the sharpest and most well-rounded scientists I've ever met. I would imagine "their own level of understanding [of] the fundamental sciences"--assuming you're referring to physics, chemistry, and geoscience--is about as good as any practicing scientist around. Their breadth of scientific knowledge, however, is considerably better than most; therein lies their value to what is fundamentally an integrated science.

But that's admittedly based on a small sample size.

[MARAB0D]

Reference please

Would you first help me and provide a reference, saying that a horse is not a sea horse??? For start open any CRC book and you would get there Thermodynamic Properties for most gases including CO2 - vapor pressures, heat content, heat of vaporization, specific volume of saturated vapors, density, entropy, all for different temperatures, my edition gives from -20 to +88 C for CO2. Is that what you referred to using that other book? If not - I apologise. If yes - I would be happy to receive the apologies too, as this data is not relevant to atmosphere at all. IR absorbtion does not belong to thermodynamics (to be honest what exactly thermophysics deals with I am unsure).

[MARAB0D]

Who is claiming this? Rising surface temperatures don't indicate the earth's "heat balance is about to be destroyed."

if so then there is no point at all - as soon as the fossil fuels would finish (not too long to wait), the GW would be over and we would return to freezing. No reason for a panic! Once again, nothing to discuss, no point.

[questionmark]

Would you first help me and provide a reference, saying that a horse is not a sea horse??? For start open any CRC book and you would get there Thermodynamic Properties for most gases including CO2 - vapor pressures, heat content, heat of vaporization, specific volume of saturated vapors, density, entropy, all for different temperatures, my edition gives from -20 to +88 C for CO2. Is that what you referred to using that other book? If not - I apologise. If yes - I would be happy to receive the apologies too, as this data is not relevant to atmosphere at all. IR absorbtion does not belong to thermodynamics (to be honest what exactly thermophysics deals with I am unsure).

Is that your way of saying that you've made it up as you go?

[MARAB0D]

Is that your way of saying that you've made it up as you go?

Mind you, when disagreeing or even joking i do not have a background task to humiliate you anyhow! I am open, I am sincerely trying to discuss the matter, which is fully within my professional field. You, on your part, are either due to not closely involved with the sciences we are trying to discuss, or for some other reasons, turning toward some either personal or an emotional matter. Do not forget, for a couple of months already I cannot hear from you the opinion on what exactly the Vostok drilling graph shows, despite you yourself chose it as an example in support of AGW... Instead you de-facto continue flooding some ridiculous, outright wrong or completely irrelevant references.

Now you have demanded a reference from ME about Thermodynamics of CO2 gas being not related to the atmosphere. Before I need to answer to this [irrelevant] question, why do not you provide the reference why is that old thermodynamics book must be somehow relevant to IR absorbtion of the gases? Why did you decide to choose an engineering work on heat exchange as a support document on AGW? If you care to explain me why, I may consider spending some time with you on explaining certain basics, but otherwise you only leave for me to post you a link to nursery rhymes!

You are insisting Mankind warms the planet, not me! I am only asking for the actual facts, the temperature charts, data etc. You are failing to provide such at all, despite the burden of proof is on you. Then I am trying to explain that what you say is not only non-existing, but impossible THEORETICALLY, and you demand a references. To what? To the absence of AGW? Just look at your outdoor thermometer! This is best reference! Then check the sea level in the Meds, look at the sky...

[ninjadude]

Computer models which are often times wrong when predicting temps even just several days in advance ?

forecasting is always wrong. That is true of all forecasting/prediction. It is the degree of inaccuracy that is important. And no, weather forecasting is actually quite good. It's just that you want it to be perfect. That will never happen. Within a range, most weather forecasts do quite well both in tempurature, clouds and precipitation and even especially extreme events. In addition, you're talking about local short-term weather forecasting. Local variations disappear when you talk about long term and global forecasting about climate - where we talk about averages over long periods of time - and the long term effects of those changes. That's why we continually say weather <> climate.

[ninjadude]

I have not investigated the climate models being used, but I do know a bit about forecasting. Many lay people are simply not aware of how forecasts are compiled these days. For many things, weather, xmas shopping, stock market, etc. The basic plan is to use many forecasting methods/models with as much historical information as you can get. And use the model to predict how the PAST would have turned out with each model. The model(s) with the best fit of the PAST data is chosen to forecast into the FUTURE. Near term forecasts are more accurate than far future forecasts. That is, we are more certain what will happen in 5 years than 100 years. As each time period flows by, more historical data is applied. Hopefully more external historical data is discovered as well. These feed into the models as well. The end result is a pretty good approximation of what will happen. It is not perfect. It will never be able to 100% say what will happen. If you want that, you need to go suspend disbelief and part with some of your money for a truthsayer. To argue against forecasting/models is an antiquated notion. Nearly everything in your daily life is forecasted somewhere by someone. And it improves our existence.

[Professor Buzzkill]

I think i just fell in love marabod! Your lucky i don't swing that way or i might have looked you up!

[MARAB0D]

I think i just fell in love marabod! Your lucky i don't swing that way or i might have looked you up!

Thank you, I feel flattered!

[ExpandMyMind]

sigh..... If you think that is addressing the paper in the slightest then you are in no position to judge.

for a man who's at unnie, you're not very smart are you matt? about as bright as 2 in the morning....

he did address the paper. he addressed the paper. you know this because you could see it clearly in the reply.

what he, marabod, revealed to us mere simpletons, was that the paper wasn't an actual scientific paper at all. it was more of an, opinion paper we'll call it, laced with assumptions and opinions. how is that science? why should he address any paper that is so obviously lacking in the basic principles of science, by taking on board these assumptions and opinions and dressing them up as scientific fact? he shouldn't...

now what i will agree with (and you should really learn to structure your replies a bit better, it's a bit of an embarassement to the educational system here in the UK - and you make it easy for people you debate with), is that he didn't address the content of the paper, other than to tell us the reasons why it can't be classed as a real scientific paper at all.

but matt, kid, he did address the paper. there is no question.

Edited November 20, 2009 by expandmymind

[Mattshark]

for a man who's at unnie, you're not very smart are you matt? about as bright as 2 in the morning....

he did address the paper. he addressed the paper. you know this because you could see it clearly in the reply.

what he, marabod, revealed to us mere simpletons, was that the paper wasn't an actual scientific paper at all. it was more of an, opinion paper we'll call it, laced with assumptions and opinions. how is that science? why should he address any paper that is so obviously lacking in the basic principles of science, by taking on board these assumptions and opinions and dressing them up as scientific fact? he shouldn't...

now what i will agree with (and you should really learn to structure your replies a bit better, it's a bit of an embarassement to the educational system here in the UK - and you make it easy for people you debate with), is that he didn't address the content of the paper, other than to tell us the reasons why it can't be classed as a real scientific paper at all.

but matt, kid, he did address the paper. there is no question.

No the article was a piece about a paper, he addressed the article. He has posted no evidence at all.

The study by Professor Le Quéré and her team, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, envisages a far higher figure.

See what the article says there? Marabod never read that bit did he, but then Marabod thinks theories become laws despite showing him that the scientific world disagree.

Maybe you ought to read it. Look what it says, that the article is about paper in Nature.

Look, there is even a link to the paper.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo689.html

Please don't patronise me and don't or call me "not very smart" when you clearly never read the article.

[ExpandMyMind]

No the article was a piece about a paper, he addressed the article. He has posted no evidence at all.

See what the article says there? Marabod never read that bit did he, but then Marabod thinks theories become laws despite showing him that the scientific world disagree.

Maybe you ought to read it. Look what it says, that the article is about paper in Nature.

Look, there is even a link to the paper.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo689.html

why are you even addressing this to me? why don't you actually go back and look out marabod's original reply and start debating him. ah, yeah, that's right. it's not so easy to belittle someone who knows more than you do.

Please don't patronise me and don't or call me "not very smart" when you clearly never read the article.

excellent. i touched a nerve. exactly what i was going for. sometimes the wind of arrogance needs a sharp slash from the blade of insult...

[Mattshark]

why are you even addressing this to me? why don't you actually go back and look out marabod's original reply and start debating him. ah, yeah, that's right. it's not so easy to belittle someone who knows more than you do.

Yeah, Marabod thinks he knows more than every scientific institution too, not just on this but as I said on scientific terminology too. I addressed you because you addressed me.

Tell me, what evidence has he posted?

excellent. i touched a nerve. exactly what i was going for. sometimes the wind of arrogance needs a sharp slash from the blade of insult...

Yeah, maybe if you weren't so horrifically wrong it would help instead of making you look like a fool.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Mattshark

[ExpandMyMind]

Yeah, Marabod thinks he knows more than every scientific institution too, not just on this but as I said on scientific terminology too. I addressed you because you addressed me.

Tell me, what evidence has he posted?

actually, look back pal. you addressed me to begin with.

he didn't need to post any 'evidence' as he was quite easily able to refute the entire article posted as opinionated 'science'. look, you can go have a look back a few pages and see all this for yourself. and again, why not reply to marabod? are you another that cowers away?

Yeah, maybe if you weren't so horrifically wrong it would help instead of making you look like a fool.

LOL. how was i wrong? you're the one who said mara didn't address the paper. he clearly did address the paper, giving his thoughts. it's really quite clear for anyone with eyes to see.

i said he addressed the paper, you said he didn't. he obviously did.

how does that make me wrong? it doesn't.

[Mattshark]

actually, look back pal. you addressed me to begin with.

he didn't need to post any 'evidence' as he was quite easily able to refute the entire article posted as opinionated 'science'. look, you can go have a look back a few pages and see all this for yourself. and again, why not reply to marabod? are you another that cowers away?

No, he just posted his unbacked opinion, didn't even see there was a paper and only addressed the article. I'm not cowering away, I'm not the person going AGAINST the evidence though

LOL. how was i wrong? you're the one who said mara didn't address the paper. he clearly did address the paper, giving his thoughts. it's really quite clear for anyone with eyes to see.

i said he addressed the paper, you said he didn't. he obviously did.

how does that make me wrong? it doesn't.

Well apart from the fact that he said there was no paper, which comprehensively showed that there was.

No he didn't, but lets go over his post too (for you too Mara)

There is no summary and no scientific paper at all

Yes there is, in fact there is both, this is a lie.

it is all based on personal opinions of 31 climatologist, whom no one knows who made a world authority.

Actually it tells you who they are on the Nature site and even gives contact information, they are in the journal because they wrote an paper, that's generally how work goes in a journal. This is not an opinion piece though, if you had read the paper that would be obvious.

But these climatologists refer not to the climatic data, but to the Physics, Physical Chemistry and Thermodynamics, neither of these 3 disciplines is comprehensively learned by any climate specialist

It is nice to know you have their educational backgrounds to hand Mara.

no wonder the vocal support for the concept also comes from amateurs like yourself or MShark, who is just a miserable Biologist, what does he know about climate

Yeah, cos climate has no bearing on biology in the slightest

And on the contrary Mara, I'm a rather cheerful biologist

I look outside and see that this year NZ is at least 5-10 degrees below the average, we have the coldest spring people can remember! And the same people from other continents tell here.

Good to know you clearly no such about climate and trends isn't it. Well done on showing your ignorance.

What is your personal expertise in greenhouse effect? Do you know that water and CO2 work absolutely the same way? If we decide to stop CO2 - then what would be be doing with water? Issue the law, prohibiting the oceans to evaporate? Death for violating?

Meaningless comment. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas yes, it is not something ignored in climatology.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

However, at present the major issue is the a rise in atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm at the start of the industrial revolution to about 387ppm at present. We are also seeing (now don't get scared but this involves biology) a loss of organisms that are important to removing CO2 from the atmosphere (and the Earths primary O2 producer).

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801plankton.html

And of course the well documented rainforest destruction.

Happy expandmymind?

[ExpandMyMind]

No, he just posted his unbacked opinion, didn't even see there was a paper and only addressed the article. I'm not cowering away, I'm not the person going AGAINST the evidence though

he didn't see there was a paper? nothing he wrote suggests that. he, first, replied to the article, yes. but there is nothing there to suggest that he didn't know there was a paper.

and his opinion was that both the article and paper were laden with the opinions of the authors. this is where he addressed the article/paper btw. he didn't feel it was necessary to address the opinion-filled content.

Well apart from the fact that he said there was no paper, which comprehensively showed that there was.

sigh. you've gone and taken that literally. you see, kid, that was a dig at the actual paper/article. he didn't actually mean that there was no paper or article. just that he didn't class the one/s presented as such because they were full of opinions. how could you misinterpret that? really matty boy.

No he didn't, but lets go over his post too (for you too Mara)

Yes there is, in fact there is both, this is a lie.

already shown you the error of your ways on that one. he committed no such 'lie'.

Actually it tells you who they are on the Nature site and even gives contact information, they are in the journal because they wrote an paper, that's generally how work goes in a journal. This is not an opinion piece though, if you had read the paper that would be obvious.

i'll leave this one to mara.

It is nice to know you have their educational backgrounds to hand Mara.

and again.

Yeah, cos climate has no bearing on biology in the slightest

And on the contrary Mara, I'm a rather cheerful biologist

i think he was referring to the bearing biology has on climate, not the other way around.

Good to know you clearly no such about climate and trends isn't it. Well done on showing your ignorance.

again, for mara.

Meaningless comment. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas yes, it is not something ignored in climatology.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

However, at present the major issue is the a rise in atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm at the start of the industrial revolution to about 387ppm at present. We are also seeing (now don't get scared but this involves biology) a loss of organisms that are important to removing CO2 from the atmosphere (and the Earths primary O2 producer).

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801plankton.html

And of course the well documented rainforest destruction.

and again i'll leave the science-y one for mara.

Happy expandmymind?

very happy mate. all that ^^^, for me? awww, you shouldn't have matty.

[Mattshark]

he didn't see there was a paper? nothing he wrote suggests that. he, first, replied to the article, yes. but there is nothing there to suggest that he didn't know there was a paper

Well he did specifically say "there is no scientific paper at all", which there clearly was.

and his opinion was that both the article and paper were laden with the opinions of the authors. this is where he addressed the article/paper btw. he didn't feel it was necessary to address the opinion-filled content.

And he said nothing more and offered no critique.

sigh. you've gone and taken that literally. you see, kid, that was a dig at the actual paper/article. he didn't actually mean that there was no paper or article. just that he didn't class the one/s presented as such because they were full of opinions. how could you misinterpret that? really matty boy.

Again he offered no critique, gave no reasoning.

already shown you the error of your ways on that one. he committed no such 'lie'.

Well that is very much your opinion, not mine.

i think he was referring to the bearing biology has on climate, not the other way around.

Biology works both ways in that one.

very happy mate. all that ^^^, for me? awww, you shouldn't have matty.

I'm nice like that.

[Startraveler]

and again i'll leave the science-y one for mara.

What brilliant points is it you think he's made? That climate scientists must be wrong because people don't wear CO₂ coats? He may be some sort of industry chemist but his grasp of basic physics seems a bit...incomplete.

[MARAB0D]

What brilliant points is it you think he's made? That climate scientists must be wrong because people don't wear CO₂ coats? He may be some sort of industry chemist but his grasp of basic physics seems a bit...incomplete.

You again avoid addressing the issue! I can become zealous like yourself and start proving that the earth heats up because the birds are flying in the atmosphere and absorbing IR - I even can support this by the fact that they use goose down in the same warm jackets. You are saying CO2 is a thermal insulator so strong that it jackets the entire planet even if in miserable quantities - so I only asked to explain why cannot I use it instead of the goose down! In response you say that I do not know Physics.. And you apparently do, if you dismiss the question so confidently - so stop the freak-show and explain why is it I am wrong and ignorant.