climate change

[gcthomas]

Because we are.



I'm happy to discuss who would have made billions of dollars if Cap & Trade would have been implemented, and the Chicago Climate Exchange put in place.

From http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envi...t-year-ever-three-more-records-broken-n252776

"It is becoming pretty clear that 2014 will end up as the warmest year on record," he added. "The remaining question is by how much."

What's surprising is that the warmth is building even without the presence of El Nino, the natural ocean cycle that impacts weather globally. The three warmest years on record — 1998, 2005 and 2010 — were tied to significant El Ninos, Arndt noted.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And each decade, the flowers bloom earlier. (lying daffodils!)

Nope.

Well let's take a look...

In the UK, they've been tracking that data since the 1700s:

Let's look at Washington, DC:

As the climate warms, blooming happens earlier.

Again, why don't you try reading current material

Hmm...
November 20 seems pretty recent...

The global average temperature for the world's land and ocean surfaces in October 2014 was the highest for any October since modern temperature record-keeping began in 1880, according to the latest global climate report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Last month also was the 38th consecutive October with global temperatures above the 20th century average, as the last time the world experienced below-average temperatures during the month came in 1976.

"This also marks the third consecutive month and fifth of the past six with a record high global temperature for its respective month (July was fourth highest)," NOAA's October climate report states.

Every month except February in 2014 has been at least the fourth warmest of its respective month, globally. January, March and July were the fourth warmest of their respective months.
http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/october-2014-warmest-record-noaa

Your weather report from last April doesn't seem very significant now, does it? Maybe the daffodils are Jewish, um? (Barbarian checks tet's opinion)

Oh, Ashkenazi Jewish daffodils. Sorry.

 

[zoo22]

Let's look at what "Daffodil Days at Garvan Woodland Gardens" in Arkansas posted on their website this March 2014:

"Note: Please make sure these beauties are blooming before you head out and about with the family. Because of the extreme cold we've had this winter, dates may be delayed. Most of these event organizers will be posting updates on their Facebook pages as the flowers start blooming."

The United States is 2% of the planet. And you're talking about possibly delayed daffodils blooms in Arkansas to demonstrate that the world is actually cooling?

You're using "Daffodil Days at Garvan Woodland Gardens" as your source to dispute global warming.

lain:

It's laughable, kind of, but it's also mind-boggling to me how you've managed to set yourself so far from reality.

Yes, we've sure been having some extreme cold. Got it. And despite that, we're still on course to have the warmest year on record.

I'm happy to discuss who would have made billions of dollars if Cap & Trade would have been implemented, and the Chicago Climate Exchange put in place.

You've already told us: the Jews.

 

[voltaire]

If global warming is due to increased longwave radiation in trapped by greenhouse gases then there should be more of the end comingsolar radiation saved through less outgoing longwave radiation. as it turns out the net amount of seat saved from the incoming solar radiation has gone down in the last 5 years. it went from .9 watts per square meter in 2009 to .6 watts per square meter in 2014 according to CERES measurements

 

[The Barbarian]

If global warming is due to increased longwave radiation in trapped by greenhouse gases then there should be more of the end comingsolar radiation saved through less outgoing longwave radiation.

Seems unlikely. Longwave infrared is pretty much stopped by water vapor, the percentage of which doesn't change much in the atmosphere. Midrange infrared is primarily absorbed by CO2, because other greenhouse gases don't absorb it at those frequencies.

as it turns out the net amount of seat saved from the incoming solar radiation has gone down in the last 5 years. it went from .9 watts per square meter in 2009 to .6 watts per square meter in 2014 according to CERES measurements

Doesn't look as though infrared was affected that way, but if you have a checkable source, we could take a look at it. But the fact that your premise is based on a misunderstanding, suggests that it's not going to say what you think it does.

(Barbarian checks with CERES data) And it is indeed water, not CO2 that accounts for more longwave getting out:

So, focusing again on the Nino-4 region, we might expect to find that OLR has decreased because of the surface temperature decrease (lower emission of surface radiation) – or we might expect to find that the OLR has increased because the specific humidity and cloud fraction have decreased (thus allowing more surface and lower atmosphere radiation to make it through to TOA). These are mechanisms pulling in opposite directions.

In fact we see that the reduced specific humidity and cloud fraction have outweighed the effect of the surface temperature decrease. So the physics should be clear (still considering the Nino-4 region) – if surface temperature has decreased and OLR has increased then the explanation is the reduction in “greenhouse” gases (in this case water vapor) and clouds, which contain water.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/02/07/ceres-airs-outgoing-longwave-radiation-el-nino/

So that's why more radiation is getting out, even though so many months have been hotter than ever this year.

 

[voltaire]

 

[voltaire]

Seems unlikely. Longwave infrared is pretty much stopped by water vapor, the percentage of which doesn't change much in the atmosphere. Midrange infrared is primarily absorbed by CO2, because other greenhouse gases don't absorb it at those frequencies.



Doesn't look as though infrared was affected that way, but if you have a checkable source, we could take a look at it. But the fact that your premise is based on a misunderstanding, suggests that it's not going to say what you think it does.

So, I am mistaken that global warming is caused by more greenhouse gasses trapping or delaying outgoing longwave radiation? That is what I keep hearing from your side. Let me check the latest definition on the web. Let me even see what the site "skeptical science" has to say. They say that carbon dioxide blocks the heat radiation that water vapor misses. Assuming that water vapor in cloud cover as a fraction of total atmospheric water vapor has remained constant over the last 62 years, the above graph shows a significant decrease in water vapor over the last 62 years by logical necessity. This is also assuming the greenhouse effect of water vapor vastly outweighs that of carbon dioxide. A central tenet of global warming is that the extra heat trapped by carbon dioxide creates more evaporation which creates more water vapor. A significant drop in water vapor over the last 62 years destroys that tenet. If incoming solar radiation is relatively constant, the atmosphere should cool down with increasing amounts of radiation escaping into space. The opposite has occurred. You cannot have a warming atmosphere with more energy leaving it than entering it. We know that solar output to the earth has remained relatively constant during that time period. What accounts for the increase in temperatures then? Solar insolation (less cloud cover). Your quoted article focuses on the fact that less cloud cover allows for more long wave radiation to escape. It fails to mention that less cloud cover also allows more incoming solar radiation. The amount of energy blocked from incoming solar radiation due to clouds is far greater than energy absorbed by those same clouds.(only true for lower atmosphere clouds). More incoming solar energy is allowed to reach earths surface with fewer clouds. This is where is the increase in temperatures is coming from.

 

[gcthomas]

I'll see your graph from your industrial paint chemical engineer with the honorary doctorate, and I'll raise you a graph from proper published atmospheric scientists at NOAA:

 

[The Barbarian]

It sure looks like NOAA's take on it fits the data from the climatologists better than the one from a paint engineer.

But then I guess that's not surprising.

 

[tetelestai]

8977 Record Cold temps in November vs 2022 Record Warm Temps

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, let's take a look. Here's the anomalies for Oct 2014. The dark blue areas are record lows and the dark red areas are record highs. Looks like a lot more red than blue to me.

(CNN) -- The first ten months of 2014 have been the hottest since record keeping began more than 130 years ago, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That may be hard to believe for people in places like Buffalo, New York, which saw a record early snowfall this year.

But NOAA says, despite the early bitter cold across parts of the United States in recent weeks, it's been a hot year so far for the Earth.

With two months left on the calendar, 2014 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record.

The average global temperature between January and October has been 0.68 degrees Celsius (1.22 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the 20th century's average global temperature of 14.1 C (57.4 F).

NOAA's analysis is an important "health gauge" indicating an ominous trend for the planet, says CNN meteorologist Derek Van Dam.

"It's becoming increasingly more difficult to be a skeptic of the causes of our warming planet," he says.

Hottest October

This October was the hottest October on record globally, NOAA data showed. The mercury climbed more than one degree Fahrenheit above the 20th century average of 57.1 F.

It was the fourth warmest October on record for the United States, NOAA said.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/tech/innovation/record-temperatures/

Anyone want to bet that we'll see more blue than red for November?

 

[The Barbarian]

GISS just posted the temp for November. A bit lower than expected. Only the 7th hottest since we started measuring, hotter than any November before 2000.

So now, it's neck and neck for 2010 and 2014 for the hottest year ever. Should be interesting to see how December comes in. And the bet no denier wanted to touch? Good move on their part:

 

[zoo22]

No. I was cold so that's a lie.

Also, that reminds me, the LIEberals are obviously censoring that I was cold. More liberal censorship. Typical.

 

[resodko]

GISS just posted the temp for November. A bit lower than expected. Only the 7th hottest since we started measuring, hotter than any November before 2000.

So now, it's neck and neck for 2010 and 2014 for the hottest year ever. Should be interesting to see how December comes in. And the bet no denier wanted to touch? Good move on their part:

it would be interesting to see what they base their mid-ocean data on, especially when one considers that MH370 vanished without a trace

 

[The Barbarian]

If you thought about it for a minute, I'm sure you could figure it out. Or I could explain it to you. Think.

 

[resodko]

it's ok for you to say you don't know :idunno:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
If you thought about it for a minute, I'm sure you could figure it out. Or I could explain it to you. Think.

res replies:

It's not as hard as you think. An aircraft over the ocean isn't detectable by temperature. So neither satellite monitors nor buoys would detect it. And except for the occasional sampling done by vessels, that's how ocean surface temperature is recorded.

Hence, the temperature-sensing system was completely unable to track a single aircraft over the ocean. It's like expecting a thermometer to measure the speed of your car.

See, it wasn't that hard to figure out.

 

[patrick jane]

we'll figure it out when the ice keeps melting, storms get bigger and stronger and sea levels rise. oh wait, is that happening yet ?:help:

 

[resodko]

Barbarian suggests:
If you thought about it for a minute, I'm sure you could figure it out. Or I could explain it to you. Think.

res replies:

actually, i replied:

it's ok for you to say you don't know :idunno:

looks like you sampled a small fraction of my answer, much like those who claim to have valid values for ocean temperatures do :chuckle:

It's not as hard as you think. An aircraft over the ocean isn't detectable by temperature.

really?

:think:

how does a heat seeking missile work?

So neither satellite monitors nor buoys would detect it. And except for the occasional sampling done by vessels, that's how ocean surface temperature is recorded.

so now you're claiming ocean surface temperature? :chuckle:

so, how many bouys are they using to monitor the 361 million square kilometers of ocean?

and why wouldn't satellite temperature monitors be expected to detect jet engine exhaust?

Hence, the temperature-sensing system was completely unable to track a single aircraft over the ocean. It's like expecting a thermometer to measure the speed of your car.

i can conceive of a method to calculate the speed of my car based on two thermometers :idunno:

but, as i recall, you're weak on physics

google "hygrometer" and educate yourself :thumb:

See, it wasn't that hard to figure out.

I made a simple statement, barbie:

it would be interesting to see what they base their mid-ocean data on

looks like you're still fumbling when it comes to addressing it

but we're used to that from you - it's an inherent aspect of your dishonesty





now, answer me this - how many bouys, how frequent are they taking measurements, and what are the specs for the satellite monitors - how many and how frequent?





and again, it's ok for you to say that you don't know

 

[gcthomas]

The ocean air temperatures are measured by a host of stations on islands, supplemented with measurements from volunteer ships plying the seas. The details are all on the websites of the bodies that collect the data.

:up: