Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 131

Thread: The Climate Then And Now

  1. #1 The Climate Then And Now 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Many today believe all kinds of things about the climate. And for me I just kind of shrug and say "wow".

    I do not see any change in the climate. I have not seen any change in the climate. However I always had a strong tie to the past three generations. Something other kids did not do.

    Other kids would laugh at their great grandparents or grandparents, or parents, when they would tell that same old story, again and again, every time they got together. What those kids usually failed to realize was that if they really paid attention to the story they may have learned something about the past.

    Often the story is about a snow storm so high that grandpa had to shovel his way out of the upstairs window. To go to the store. Or that great grandma went swimming in the winter it was so hot. Or there was a tremendous snow fall in October and they say that was really strange. Even giving into the mystical change in climate a little themselves.

    I have listened to these stories and then gotten to the most stable elder in the family to verify or knock down these stories. It usually turns out that there is about 90-100 percent pure truth to what they are saying.

    Sometimes grandpa will add in that if there was Bingo the night of the snow fall, grandma would have made it to the Bingo hall just fine. I cannot scientifically tell, if he was making less of the actual snow fall. Or grandmas love of staying home with him. But he did give it a thumbs up on the amount of snow that fell. Ha-ha.

    There are also often historical differences in the way structures were built. Or you find out that it was a snow drift that covered the house. The actual snowfall was probably a rather strangely high four feet of snow. But the wind exaggerated the snow fall against the house.

    The bottom line is that there is much evidence to show that weather is the same as it ever was.

    You might want to read this before you make a conclusion about the weather. Check out the sub chapter "The Constancy Of Climate"









    This is the whole text about the climate. Great read. A must read.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Weather/Weather.pdf

    This book was copyrighted in 1927.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick,


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    In 1927, based on the last 50 years (or 47 anyhow), he was pretty much right. The data shows it as well (see below), with subtle ups and downs. Things are considerably different now and we see it not only in the global temperature average, we're seeing as biological communities move, glacier retreats and in other ways. These aren't just the anecdotal type of examples that he gives.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    We made rock paintings of ourselves with our boats, in the Sahara. Lake country then.

    We never could find that Northwest Passage, why we sailed to North American in the first place. You could walk across the ice, all year. Now the polar bears are dying 'cause they can't swim so far.

    In my life I've watched the fat tongue of Comox Glacier wither. At this rate it'll have melted to a humble spot of ice when my grandchildren see it.

    The fish and insect species have changed. These belong to warmer climates. I especially resent the black widow spiders now "native" to my area. My neighbours are growing banana trees, because they can. In Canada.

    ...folk wisdom...
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    In 1927, based on the last 50 years (or 47 anyhow), he was pretty much right. The data shows it as well (see below), with subtle ups and downs. Things are considerably different now and we see it not only in the global temperature average, we're seeing as biological communities move, glacier retreats and in other ways. These aren't just the anecdotal type of examples that he gives.

    I forget where and when, but a couple years ago someone found a body, and claimed that it must have been such and such many thousand years old. "Because there has been ice in this area for thousands of years. Only massive global warming uncovered the body". Of course after the check out the body, they dated it in the couple hundred year range.

    So we know that glaciers and ice packs can do weird things, then God's wisdom and awesome science kicks in.

    Water as it is exposed to the cold arctic air. Will dissipate an amount of BTU's that I would call infinite. Because I can only imagine the amount of heat that will be dissipated. Huge amounts of heat.

    When this occurs you will get cold water moving down lower towards the equator. This will intern cool the planet. The arctic glaciers will form up again and it will be business as usual.

    It is because of water, water is like antimony, It expands upon cooling. Very few substances do this. The arctic circles act like thermostats. When it gets to warm, the caps melt. Water is super cooled. Over the whole planet. Then the caps reform and all is well.







    Here are a few more pages from the same book.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Chemicals/Water.pdf


    This book is from 1829

    It is my belief that global warming sellers, are selling fear.

    In 1928 cars were putting up 2,700,000,000,000 cubic feet of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere. And 17,500,000,000 gallons of freshly created water each year. It has caused no real change in climate. General motors was proud of it.

    That chart you posted seemed to prove my point that there is no real climate change.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by William MaCormick
    It is my belief that global warming sellers, are selling fear.

    In 1928 cars were putting up 2,700,000,000,000 cubic feet of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere. And 17,500,000,000 gallons of freshly created water each year. It has caused no real change in climate. General motors was proud of it.

    That chart you posted seemed to prove my point that there is no real climate change.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I beg your pardon, Mister MaCormick, there IS a Global Warming, a Psychological Global Warming; a cultural reflex to the exogenous sucess of modern times that is manifested by some folks in self loathing and hatred of their own kind.

    You can not tell these True Believers that there is no Buggerbear. They need a Buggerbear. Otherwise they will spend the rest of their life contemplating their navel because without Bugg-a-boos their life has no meaning.

    But hey, they may be bonkers but that doesn't mean they are bad people. They are just people who will cause the downfall of this phase of mankind's adventure on Earth.

    Mmm...Phase ll should be a doozie! :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Quote Originally Posted by William MaCormick
    It is my belief that global warming sellers, are selling fear.

    In 1928 cars were putting up 2,700,000,000,000 cubic feet of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere. And 17,500,000,000 gallons of freshly created water each year. It has caused no real change in climate. General motors was proud of it.

    That chart you posted seemed to prove my point that there is no real climate change.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I beg your pardon, Mister MaCormick, there IS a Global Warming, a Psychological Global Warming; a cultural reflex to the exogenous sucess of modern times that is manifested by some folks in self loathing and hatred of their own kind.

    You can not tell these True Believers that there is no Buggerbear. They need a Buggerbear. Otherwise they will spend the rest of their life contemplating their navel because without Bugg-a-boos their life has no meaning.

    But hey, they may be bonkers but that doesn't mean they are bad people. They are just people who will cause the downfall of this phase of mankind's adventure on Earth.

    Mmm...Phase ll should be a doozie! :P
    Must be from a group of powerful telepaths then to produce the results in Lynx_Fox.

    William McCormick: 1829 is NOT what i call recent.

    Why do you have such an aversion to modern science and references.

    radiation is not extacly poison air!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Milum the Buggerbear is yours: it is your fellow man, whom you insult and preemptively blame for humanity's downfall!

    If your struggle isn't "man against nature" what is it?

    Damn you. But we'll take care of your future regardless!



    This thread isn't welcoming scientific evidence. Move to Politics?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    I have seen articles which state the climate has been generally warmer in the past at times than it is now, cooler/moister/ etc etc. It seems to me that we still lack a full understanding of the driving forces for natural 'climate control'. I believe there is a lot crap spouted on both sides of this argument, mostly for personal gain, greed getting in the way of good science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by wert
    I have seen articles which state the climate has been generally warmer in the past at times than it is now, cooler/moister/ etc etc.
    True, but we've got to go back more than a few years...possibly as far as 8-10 thousand years when astronomical forcing peaked.

    It seems to me that we still lack a full understanding of the driving forces for natural 'climate control'.
    If "full" means "absolute," that's always true with science. In this case though confidence is pretty high--at least high enough to consider it a serious matter which we should in a metaphorical sense, take insurance out for.

    greed getting in the way of good science.
    A common claim on deniest websites-because it tugs at people's cynical expectation that people are corrupt. The thing is most scientist that are behind climate change science, work for governments where they can't take extra money; furthermore, in the US there's been significant pressure to suppress the science by altering reports meant for the general public and putting vetting process every time climate scientist appears in public. I can tell you from first hand experience neither was true in the 80's when I worked in government atmospheric science. Hopefully some of that will change today about 10 AM EST or so.

    "That chart you posted seemed to prove my point that there is no real climate change. "
    So actual temperature rise is proof of no-climate change...(scratches head)(shrugs)
    The other fact that might be confusing is loss of arctic ice is a positive feedback to climate warming because during the summer the reflectivity of solar radiation of open water is much lower than that of ice and snow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    The problem with Global Warming is that it's politically motivated science. It stems from the same unpredictability that causes our grandparents to go "It used to be much warmer/colder when I was young!". In a sense, that's true, because Earth goes through natural temperature cycles. Current claims of man made global warming are absolutely ridiculous because of a few key facts. For one, many other planets on the solar system are also warming. For two, Earth is no longer warming.

    For the past few years it has been going from "record high" hot to "back to normal" (even record cold thanks to arctic blasts). As you may notice on many of these "official" charts, the last year or two is kind of hidden. They don't want to show the temperature drop, nor do they want to add an extrapolation on that data. NOR do they want to admit their prior estimates were entirely wrong (I've seen many graphs show the temperature steadily rising. Only IT'S NOT ANYMORE).

    Global Warming is a hack of a science. I do not deny that humans impact their environment negatively, through pollution or REFORESTATION (Ironically humans are planting too many trees in some parts of the world), but I do deny that they are responsible for the ever changing climate of the planet. In spite of my many hours of reading the evidence, there is no evidence that specifically proves CO2 is causing this warming. In fact the "evidence" is just an observation. CO2 has been rising, temperature has been rising. Therefore CO2 is the cause. Only now temperatures are dropping and CO2 is still rising.

    That brings me to their latest excuse. "We now know CO2 can cause cold too! global warming is still real! PLEASE BELIEVE US!" while more respectable scientists are jumping ship and changing their opinions with "CO2 does appear to change climate, but even if we pumped all the oil into the atmosphere it would not impact the planet enough to be dangerous".

    So we should turn our attention to the REAL problem. The real and SEVERE problem plaguing the human race that, if eliminated, would also vastly reduce CO2 (so it's win/win either way) output. Global OVERPOPULATION. Rememebr that? Remember before Global Warming took over as the worlds greatest threat? Remember when scientists were still actually concerned? The threat hasn't gone away. Earths population is in free climb. With rocket boosters. Our planet only has so many resources and we're quickly stripping them away. There are fewer fish in the ocean than ever, less land to be had, fewer minerals and ore's for use, increasingly conglomerated megacities (which are proven VERY bad for the human health), etc. Pay attention to the real threat to the planet: Too many of us.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    What about this. No global warming? You must be blind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    As you may notice on many of these "official" charts, the last year or two is kind of hidden. They don't want to show the temperature drop, nor do they want to add an extrapolation on that data. NOR do they want to admit their prior estimates were entirely wrong (I've seen many graphs show the temperature steadily rising. Only IT'S NOT ANYMORE).
    It would be pretty hard to cover up anything considering all the data is posted nearly real time, the process used to review and compile the data is published and can be found in any library, and the results crunches are posted within weeks. It also spans multiple data sets including observed land, ocean as well as many other forms of proxy information such as migration dates of birds etc. across many nations and sciences. So you can believe in some grandiose conspiracy that's unbelievably large, or accept that the reason you can't see a dramatic drop is because one doesn't exist. Yes, there has been a small drop the past couple years (you can see it on the chart above or it's equivalent by NASA) but it's pretty easy to see it's also within natural year to year variability--nothing special at all. Given the overall increasing temperature trend, and year to year variability we should only hit a new high global temperature average once average 5-10 years--sometimes 1 year, occasionally longer than ten years.

    To your other odd quote about planets, we don't have good climate data on other planets--we barely have weather data and that at only a few points on Mars, not even that on any other planets that I'm aware of. Though I have to admit that would be interesting. The primary long term forcing (e.g. >1000 years), like here on earth, would probably be astronomical, as solar radiation changes due to orbital eccentricity and axis wobbles: Based on that forcing the earth is very slightly cooling, while Mars is slowly warming as it comes out of it's own ice age.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    The temperature drop in the last three years is very worth mentioning because it's a steady climb downward. Most charts stop their data at 05 or 06, and I have not seen an updated chart from any non-naysayer in a number of years. The naysayers typically make charts based on temperature data from various sources and emphasize the last three years, 06-08, to show there IS a significant (and noteworthy) downward pattern. As you can see, the only graph shown in this thread is also somewhat shoddy and poorly made.

    More and more people are catching on to these shenanigans and speaking out against the dubious methods used to make the graphs you typically see. Take this website, for instance. Disagreeing with man-made global warming (something I've done from the get-go) is becoming more acceptable now that more evidence is there to prove it wrong.

    As I'm starting to get a bit mentally worked up on this (There's just so much data to analyze!), prepare for a link cloud starting...now: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. But here's an older list of an ongoing project to document ALL poorly placed weather stations (The list is quite...long). http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

    This is the same message I've been delivering since 05-06. I find it angering that people are just now starting to wake up from the amazing dazzling light show of the media and go "Hey, wait a minute..."
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    temperature drop in the last three years is very worth mentioning because it's a steady climb downward.
    What Lynx_Fox I think rightly cautioned is don't focus on a few years either way. We aren't talking about weather.

    Sometimes I point out that for the first time in recorded history the Northwest Passage has opened, several years running now. Shocking! But I guess it'll remain closed some years. We should look for a larger trend.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    amazing dazzling light show of the media
    So you're really taking issue with the headline vendors. You're right. Of course they'll distort or fabricate to make a story... either way... whatever sells to their target audience. But aren't we above that? Anyway no use complaining here.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Milum the Buggerbear is yours: it is your fellow man, whom you insult and preemptively blame for humanity's downfall!

    If your struggle isn't "man against nature" what is it?

    Damn you. But we'll take care of your future regardless!



    This thread isn't welcoming scientific evidence. Move to Politics?
    Ah Pongo, but will this thread welcome evidence? Listen? Hear the cries of ten million African children who died because of our tree hugging zeal in banning DDT exports to Africa?

    But where there are resonable men there is hope. The impetus of a runaway locomotive is great and can only be stopped by a terrible train wreck. The impetus of the psuedo-scientific, money-grubbing runnaway scheme called Global Warming can only be stopped by a worldwide economic depression.

    Sigh, the terrible things we must undergo for mankind's progression.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    There's grubby money to be made in selling global warming? What radio station gave you that idea?

    Explain.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Of course there is money being made in Global Warming, Pong. Various climate control organizations have been given international power to find country's that do not comply with certain regulations. Treaties have been signed that punish advanced country's severely (Kyoto's impossible deadlines anyone?), "carbon credits" have been fashioned into an outright trade, etc.

    The money being made or lost because of man made global warming is huge. It was what initially got people to buy those older and shitty fluorescent lights (GOD I hated those). If it's suddenly generally agreed to be wrong there's a vast market that's suddenly gone.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    The temperature drop in the last three years is very worth mentioning because it's a steady climb downward. Most charts stop their data at 05 or 06, and I have not seen an updated chart from any non-naysayer in a number of years.
    Not sure what you're talking about here. Perhaps you should look at the actual agencies where that produce the temperature.

    The chart I already posted in this thread includes all of 2008. I'm posting the similar chart from NASA/GISS dataset, also updated through 2008, below. They both show the drop during the past two years. If you compare to other drops in prior years, its clear that its nothing special. No one is hiding anything.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    You fail. Had you actually done any research, or indeed clicked on any of my links, you would be well informed as to why that specific chart is simply wrong. Try to go back, reread, and actually click on my links. Hint: They prove you wrong

    Edit: After some research of my own I see that these are, in fact, 08 "updates". Even though these updates are still wrong.

    http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...l-warming.html

    This website provides a different graph that shows the true fall.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/1...ast-12-months/

    Is the original.

    Edit2: For the purpose of further education I have found this link: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...rificatio.html

    This link compares both the GISS chart (the flawed one) and RSS data. RSS data shows a steep downward trend that matches what I said exactly, and even more (since 05!). Meanwhile the GISS chart starts to follow, then suddenly veers upward like a mountain. Suspicious. This article also details a number of other things. Worth a read.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Of course there is money being made in Global Warming, Pong.
    There is much more money being made by actually producing global warming and hiding it. Denying it actually removes the pressure on the oligopolistic energy companies of doing something against it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    What about this. No global warming? You must be blind.

    I did not even go to check out that site. I am sure that on the scale of our planet, that glaciers receding and advancing over hundreds or even thousand, of year cycles is not really that unpredictable.

    Do you know that many years ago when there were far fewer individuals on earth, a fractions, fraction of what is here today. They were afraid that the wood fires they were making were warming the earth. Or making the volcanoes erupt.

    It is those that do not understand weather that jump to strange conclusions without wanting to see the whole picture. They are salesmen for poor science.

    Real weathermen stand with me on this.

    I grew up on the water. And if you want the unpredictably and the predictability of earth exposed to you. Just watch the tide over a twenty year period. Just when you know, you know all about the tides. Look out. The most outrageous change takes place. And then almost by magic everything is back to normal. The next day.

    The problem is the weight of the exacting and unchanging evidence, of the constancy of climate. We so rely on the unchanging nature of weather and earth. That when it changes for a while, and shows a frightening pattern, we come unglued. But it is part of a bigger cycle. It will all work out.

    There is more proof the glaciers must have been more eroded in the last couple of hundred years. Then that, they have never been this receded.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    I'm quite sure you mean there is little man made warming, rather than no warming. There is obviously some planetary warming (we're entering a tropical cycle).
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I'm quite sure you mean there is little man made warming, rather than no warming. There is obviously some planetary warming (we're entering a tropical cycle).
    I do not see planetary warming at all. Just like when my waterway, one day dried up behind my house, grounding my boat. I did not believe that we were running out of water. It had to do with a strange alignment of the moon and sun. Only happens every thousand or couple thousand years.

    It only happened one day in twenty years. Three foot less water then the lowest tied ever.

    It looked like we had less water. But if you looked around the whole planet at the same time. You would see that all the water was there. But if you were living by me you would say wow. It looks like we have no more water.

    All the Climate hot and cold is here. You just have to want to see the whole picture.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    There is obviously some planetary warming (we're entering a tropical cycle).
    i've never heard this term before
    what is a tropical cycle ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Those charts are showing one degree Celsius difference over a hundred years. That one degree Celsius is far less then the accepted deviation of the temperature equipment used to measure the temperature.

    I used to manufacture heating and cooling equipment, one degree is a very tight tolerance. Extremely tight tolerance for any equipment to maintain.


    Slight changes in the standard location for a thermometer or time of day of the recording, could easily mean a degree. There is no evidence of global warming.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    There is satellite temperature monitoring. My last link contains a link to a graph plotting the results of such a device. We are warming, but at a much slower rate and most definitely not in line with CO2 increase. Warming is happening, it's just not man made.

    I do believe the real problem is URBAN warming, which I believe can cause weather deviations in a "local" area of about 50 miles or more. If you read the data I've provided (via links) you'll see why I think it's a concern, but hardly anything dangerous (or even damaging, really).

    Edit: I should also mention that I believe recent warming trends are due to solar activity. Once the solar activity dies we'll revert to a more noraml temperature. It's going to take millions of years to bring us back to the tropical temperatures of the Paleozoic/Mesozoic era.

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    There is obviously some planetary warming (we're entering a tropical cycle).
    i've never heard this term before
    what is a tropical cycle ?
    I use it to describe extremely hot/humid/etc weather, generally found in tropical areas, during the Paleozoic period of Earth history. Some estimates place the optimal temperature in this period to be 6-10C warmer than todays world temperature. The process might be a bit accelerated (or exaggerated) because it gets warmer when the continents are separate. So I dub this "Tropical age", a countername for the "Ice Age". Although one may already exist, I have not come across it (so I just invented it).
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    There is obviously some planetary warming (we're entering a tropical cycle).
    i've never heard this term before
    what is a tropical cycle ?
    I use it to describe extremely hot/humid/etc weather, generally found in tropical areas, during the Paleozoic period of Earth history. Some estimates place the optimal temperature in this period to be 6-10C warmer than todays world temperature. The process might be a bit accelerated (or exaggerated) because it gets warmer when the continents are separate. So I dub this "Tropical age", a countername for the "Ice Age". Although one may already exist, I have not come across it (so I just invented it).
    The actual terms that you are looking for in this case would be "hothouse " for the warm periods in earths history, and "Icehouse" for the cold periods. These terms are used primarily by paleontologist so it is not too surprising that you have not heard of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    I actually read of them in an article I read while making that post. I thought they were unofficial as well, though, so I stuck with my own.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I actually read of them in an article I read while making that post. I thought they were unofficial as well, though, so I stuck with my own.
    They are used frequently in the discussion of paleoclimactic works and I hear it frequently the GSA meeting etc...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Of course there is money being made in Global Warming, Pong. Various climate control organizations have been given international power to find country's that do not comply with certain regulations. Treaties have been signed that punish advanced country's severely (Kyoto's impossible deadlines anyone?), "carbon credits" have been fashioned into an outright trade, etc.

    The money being made or lost because of man made global warming is huge. It was what initially got people to buy those older and shitty fluorescent lights (GOD I hated those). If it's suddenly generally agreed to be wrong there's a vast market that's suddenly gone.
    Okay, I agree with that.

    My provincial power company does push those bulbs, as "green" with all the sloppy sentiment. They urge the rapidly growing population to trim electrical demand. But the plain business motive is to moderate residential customers' share of consumption, because a) local watershed protection groups effectively veto any new dam construction, and, b) the power company (BC Hydro) makes more money selling to industry and exporting to the less efficient North American grid generally, than to local householders who enjoy a rate cap. Ironically this same "green" power company has quit promoting hydro dams and now quietly builds small-scale fossil fuel plants to meet demand.

    A curious puzzle recently played out over Borneo's rainforest, involving carbon credits - the result being that Indonesia and Malaysia must continue to depend on Exxon oil rigs not a domestic biofuel industry they were attempting. WWF is funded by Exxon. <_<

    No doubt equally weird intrigues are common worldwide, around energy conservation. Any one voice (like BC Hydro) wouldn't dare justify its position by global warming, but as a group (as in broad sentiment) I can see global warming popularly welcomed, as it backs energy conservation if played right. Think globally, act locally. <_<

    Despite the cynical interest some parties have in warming, the science behind it is good. IMHO warming is a proven fact. It warns us of a grave imbalance. But we should be more critical of conclusions and especially solutions that profit the solver. Those solutions may actually contribute to the problem... for example the debate over biofuels. It's a puzzle with too many hands in it. But, again, the basic fact of warming is certain.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Despite the cynical interest some parties have in warming, the science behind it is good. IMHO warming is a proven fact. It warns us of a grave imbalance. But we should be more critical of conclusions and especially solutions that profit the solver. Those solutions may actually contribute to the problem... for example the debate over biofuels. It's a puzzle with too many hands in it. But, again, the basic fact of warming is certain.
    The science only tells us that we're warming. It does NOT tell us why. The best you get is "CO2 is going up just as much, and humans pump CO2. Therefore CO2 is causing the temperature increase". Only the temperature is now dropping and, with satellite temperature monitoring, the temperature does NOT follow CO2 increase.

    Also, let me emphasize this: According to satelite data it has stopped warming since 05 and has steadily decreased. The increase is due to flawed ground temperature monitoring stations generally placed in urban locations by air conditioners (the ass-end throws out heat), pavement (heat), cars (heat), etc. One of my links details a long list of these.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Air conditioners and parking lots - I've heard that. "Last three years" I heard too. But the satellite data, among other, still shows a warming trend. Three years is not climate change!

    My weird opinion is that the warming's caused by decreased cloud cover, from reduction in aerosol nuclei. That'd blame dry-land agriculture, with some kinds of air pollution rather having masked the problem.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    You fail. Had you actually done any research, or indeed clicked on any of my links, you would be well informed as to why that specific chart is simply wrong. Try to go back, reread, and actually click on my links. Hint: They prove you wrong

    Edit: After some research of my own I see that these are, in fact, 08 "updates". Even though these updates are still wrong.
    Hardly. They are averaged by year.

    Not sure why you really wish to look at monthly averages and call it climate.

    The shorter the interval of the average the higher the variability. At month to month comparisons we're well within period most of us call weather.

    But I'll ask you. Don't you find it curious that your own reference, which shows monthly data, is incomplete and fails to show February 08 - December 08? (ironic you accused NASA and NOAA of this). The monthly data is available even to the general public.

    The reason is transparent that they'd rather cherry pick a January 07 to January 08 drop rather than show the increase over the past eleven months.

    Going by Giss, this time using the sea surface temps (because you expressed concern about the land data), updated by month through December 2008 will show you what I mean (posted below). You see this year's sharp rise? It though, like the sharp drop, doesn't tell us anything about climate change--it's a reflection of weather and yearly variability. Trends any shorter than a solar cycles, about eleven years, are pretty much meaningless--22 years and longer are even better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Hardly. They are averaged by year.

    Not sure why you really wish to look at monthly averages and call it climate.
    I...don't? It looked like the graphs were missing 07-08 because I swear I've seen the exact same graph in 06. Apparently I am mistaken. Nevertheless, the use of GISS data invalidates it for reasons listed previously.

    But I'll ask you. Don't you find it curious that your own reference, which shows monthly data, is incomplete and fails to show February 08 - December 08? (ironic you accused NASA and NOAA of this). The monthly data is available even to the general public.
    I've no idea which one you refer to (I've used over a dozen throughout my posts. Had you really read them you might have known that).

    The reason is transparent that they'd rather cherry pick a January 07 to January 08 drop rather than show the increase over the past eleven months.
    What increase? From what? Where? It'd be nice if you had told me WHAT reference.

    Going by Giss, this time using the sea surface temps (because you expressed concern about the land data), updated by month through December 2008 will show you what I mean (posted below). You see this year's sharp rise? It though, like the sharp drop, doesn't tell us anything about climate change--it's a reflection of weather and yearly variability. Trends any shorter than a solar cycles, about eleven years, are pretty much meaningless--22 years and longer are even better.
    Oh wow. That's scientific. Because all of the land data is corrupt lets just remove it and go by the very few ocean locations we have available. THAT'S a good way to determine global warming. Yep!

    I trust ocean data even LESS because nobody unassociated with the organization that upkeeps it can give it a once-over. I've seen enough badly placed (PURPOSEFULLY badly placed) stations to not believe anything from GISS data reports. In fact one of the websites I linked to gave the results of an independant study of said stations, and found only 4% of them to be compliant with the standards SET BY the NOAA.

    I don't see why you're so set on using inaccurate GISS data when satellite data is much more accurate (AND has been recording for over 22 years).

    P.S: I don't know what you're smoking, but if you actually look at various other charts you'll find most disagree. Over the course of 08 temperature has DECREASED (I've no idea where you got 11 months). Quite SHARPLY. Even GISS data agrees with this!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Air conditioners and parking lots - I've heard that. "Last three years" I heard too. But the satellite data, among other, still shows a warming trend. Three years is not climate change!

    My weird opinion is that the warming's caused by decreased cloud cover, from reduction in aerosol nuclei. That'd blame dry-land agriculture, with some kinds of air pollution rather having masked the problem.
    You're incorrect. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...rificatio.html

    RSS TLT data shows a sharp drop in temperature since 05.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    The science only tells us that we're warming. It does NOT tell us why. The best you get is "CO2 is going up just as much, and humans pump CO2. Therefore CO2 is causing the temperature increase". Only the temperature is now dropping and, with satellite temperature monitoring, the temperature does NOT follow CO2 increase.
    It's just a bit more than that.
    We've known for a century that Co2 blocks IR but it transparent to SW radiation, which means it's a green house gas.
    We know by direct measurement that man's burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the increase of Co2.
    We know the decade by decade trend has been warming of the surface and lower troposphere and has been accompanied by a stratospheric cooling--both of which are consistent with adding green house gas, and can't explained by any other phenomena which we're aware of.
    We've got detailed models which after considering increased of Co2, methane, other green house gasses, solar radiation flux and aerosols is nearly an exact match and apparently the only solution to the observed multi-decade temperature increases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Hardly. They are averaged by year.

    Not sure why you really wish to look at monthly averages and call it climate.
    I...don't? It looked like the graphs were missing 07-08 because I swear I've seen the exact same graph in 06. Apparently I am mistaken. Nevertheless, the use of GISS data invalidates it for reasons listed previously.
    You probably have seen it before, and unlike this one you posted and I referred to which only choose to cherry pick two months, http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...l-warming.html
    GISS and other agencies like NOAA actually update their data and charts on a regular basis.

    What increase? From what? Where? It'd be nice if you had told me WHAT reference.

    Ok, I'll post it again:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/SSTglb.pdf

    Oh wow. That's scientific. Because all of the land data is corrupt lets just remove it and go by the very few ocean locations we have available. THAT'S a good way to determine global warming. Yep!
    Can you spin that some more please? You whine about land data and now the sea data too. Well at least you aren't claiming it's urban heating responsible for the sea temperatures tracking the same trends as the sea and satellite data (which they do).

    Actually the combined land and sea shows the same things with a rise between December 07 to December 08. Again a meaningless change to a climate discussion.

    The satellite data has it's own problems, the biggest is that it isn't surface temperature data, where we humans and most of the rest of the biosphere live. Even the so called lower tropospheric satellite temperature data includes mid tropospheric data so tends to mask the surface tendencies. It usually tracks the same direction as the actual measured surface data trends but it a bit more subtle because it's obscured a bit by mid tropospheric trends. I've described them in these forums before but you can read about how the satellite channels are weighted if you read here, http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html.
    Note the chart which shows even data as high as 10km up is getting some weighting into the lower tropospheric satellite derived temperatures.

    The satellite data is also updated on a regular basis and includes 2008 is posted below (see figure 7). The lower troposphere temperature (TLT) is at the top, the lower stratosphere temperature (TST) at the bottom. You can see the cherry picked Jan07-Jan08 period, followed by the rise in 2008. The complete figure also shows the classic signature of lower warming and upper cooling of adding green house gasses.
    http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_des..._trend_map_tlt
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    You do realize that's an exercise in science policy, as marketable commodity?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Hardly. They are averaged by year.

    Not sure why you really wish to look at monthly averages and call it climate.
    I...don't? It looked like the graphs were missing 07-08 because I swear I've seen the exact same graph in 06. Apparently I am mistaken. Nevertheless, the use of GISS data invalidates it for reasons listed previously.
    You probably have seen it before, and unlike this one you posted and I referred to which only choose to cherry pick two months, http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...l-warming.html
    GISS and other agencies like NOAA actually update their data and charts on a regular basis.

    What increase? From what? Where? It'd be nice if you had told me WHAT reference.

    Ok, I'll post it again:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/SSTglb.pdf

    Oh wow. That's scientific. Because all of the land data is corrupt lets just remove it and go by the very few ocean locations we have available. THAT'S a good way to determine global warming. Yep!
    Can you spin that some more please? You whine about land data and now the sea data too. Well at least you aren't claiming it's urban heating responsible for the sea temperatures tracking the same trends as the sea and satellite data (which they do).

    Actually the combined land and sea shows the same things with a rise between December 07 to December 08. Again a meaningless change to a climate discussion.

    The satellite data has it's own problems, the biggest is that it isn't surface temperature data, where we humans and most of the rest of the biosphere live. Even the so called lower tropospheric satellite temperature data includes mid tropospheric data so tends to mask the surface tendencies. It usually tracks the same direction as the actual measured surface data trends but it a bit more subtle because it's obscured a bit by mid tropospheric trends. I've described them in these forums before but you can read about how the satellite channels are weighted if you read here, http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html.
    Note the chart which shows even data as high as 10km up is getting some weighting into the lower tropospheric satellite derived temperatures.

    The satellite data is also updated on a regular basis and includes 2008 is posted below (see figure 7). The lower troposphere temperature (TLT) is at the top, the lower stratosphere temperature (TST) at the bottom. You can see the cherry picked Jan07-Jan08 period, followed by the rise in 2008. The complete figure also shows the classic signature of lower warming and upper cooling of adding green house gasses.
    http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_des..._trend_map_tlt
    You might be reading that data wrong. In fact if I were pushing for a global cooling effect. I would use the raised surface temperature of the ocean in my favor.

    To say that the underlying ocean is getting colder and the slightly warmer water above 40 degrees is raising to the surface. Hiding the real cooling effect.

    Check out that book from 1829 it explains that effect.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Semantics: Dip and dodge, shift and change, these are the slippery words of snake oil salesmen and Global Warming con men. I was there when ...

    On Earthday 2007 when the famous E O Wilson dissed "Global Warming" and insisted opon "Climate Change" as a negative aspect of biological diversity .
    ( I love E O Wilson)

    And on Earthday 2008 when a Gore trained missionary of Global Warming first introduced the "irregardless mantra"which states that rising CO2 concentrations always follow global warming but still these same CO2 concentrations were, and are, the cause of Global Warming.

    I said "Huh?". And still do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    You might want to check out what CO2 does exactly, to heat rays.

    Radiant heat, causing a frequency or wavelength of 2.5 microns, is not to my knowledge effected by CO2 in any strange way.

    Water vapor may alter sunlight to Ultra Violet rays.

    Morning gases from bodies of water may contain high amounts of CO2 that allow more then usual amounts of water vapor to be lifted into the air. This may allow for large amounts of ultraviolet rays to be created.

    But I have noticed no strange effects with CO2 and heat rays. But I will do some experiments to check.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You might want to check out what CO2 does exactly, to heat rays.

    Radiant heat, causing a frequency or wavelength of 2.5 microns, is not to my knowledge effected by CO2 in any strange way.

    Water vapor may alter sunlight to Ultra Violet rays.

    Morning gases from bodies of water may contain high amounts of CO2 that allow more then usual amounts of water vapor to be lifted into the air. This may allow for large amounts of ultraviolet rays to be created.

    But I have noticed no strange effects with CO2 and heat rays. But I will do some experiments to check.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Please provide a modern* citation for this statement.

    *Modern in this case being the last 30 years no older.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    rising CO2 concentrations always follow global warming but still these same CO2 concentrations were, and are, the cause of Global Warming.
    What? Anthropogenic global warming is global warming caused by humans. CO2 is a green house gas, that is, it absorbs IR radiation. We have been pumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere for a long time. So, if you ad more of a thing to an existing amount, IT BECOMES MORE. More CO2 means more IR is trapped before it is re-emitted back into space, so, all things being equal, the average atmospheric temperatures will increase. What part of this don't you agree with?

    And please don't say anything more about Al Gore. He is merely a relayer of information (correctly done or not) and IS NOT the source. Basically, I don't care what he says. If you want to refute anthropogenic global warming, then refute the data.

    William, please stop making things up as you go along.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You might want to check out what CO2 does exactly, to heat rays.

    Radiant heat, causing a frequency or wavelength of 2.5 microns, is not to my knowledge effected by CO2 in any strange way.
    You're right but are ignoring the fact that at earth's surface emission is mostly from about 5 to about 30 microns. Co2 almost blocks IR in the ~14 to 18 microns band, which is near the peak wavelength of IR emission--particularly in the dry regions such as the entire depth of the atmosphere at high latitudes (e.g. arctic)and higher elevations in the lower latitudes where IR bands aren't already blocked by water vapor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    ...which states that rising CO2 concentrations always follow global warming but still these same CO2 concentrations were, and are, the cause of Global Warming.

    I said "Huh?". And still do.
    Why Huh? This isn't a case of one needing to happen before the other, it doesn't matter.

    Temperature and Co2 concentrations boot strap each other. Regardless of which ever comes first, they provide positive reinforcement to increase the other.

    The general idea is in the past, astronomical forcing usually starts the process with some warming, as the oceans also warm they give up Co2 due to decreasing solubility of Co2; it's akin to a warming coke bottle. Co2 being a green house gas adds to the warming. The positive reinforcement and relationship between green house gases and temperature are why temperature swings between ice ages and interglacials are amplified far more than just astronomical forcing can explain.

    I'll also echo what KALSTER refers to: Al Gore isn't an atmospheric scientist--though he's done a fair job trying to put the science into laymans terms as well as offering recommendations about ways to address the broader non-scientifc issues. The reasons to stay near the source is mouth peices sometimes lead to gross misunderstandings. An excellent example, a lot of folks hear about, is the claim that science was predicting a sudden ice age during the 70's--pure media hype--when there wasn't a single scientific agency making that claim and peer review papers were already tending towards predictions of global warming.

    Much better, if you've got a science interest, to go to the actual source of the science and their own summary reports usually meant for more general readership. A good example might be this article posted yesterday by NASA which shows antarctica warming over the past 50 years. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...ntarctica.html

    If you've got the education you can find and read the associated peer review articles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    That image is misleading. The choice of colour leads one to think that every region of Antarctica has warmed. While the data does indicate the whole of Antarctica has warmed, this is a case of dramatic warming in the low region outweighing cooling in the larger plateau region. By common hot/cold metaphor those white areas should be faintly blue.

    People will see that image and believe it claims not one bit of Antarctica has cooled... then they score debunking points.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    That image is misleading. The choice of colour leads one to think that every region of Antarctica has warmed. While the data does indicate the whole of Antarctica has warmed, this is a case of dramatic warming in the low region outweighing cooling in the larger plateau region. By common hot/cold metaphor those white areas should be faintly blue.

    People will see that image and believe it claims not one bit of Antarctica has cooled... then they score debunking points.
    Not so sure. The article, and scale at the bottem, supports the case that over the past 50 years, non of it has cooled when the entire period is accounted for. "While some areas of East Antarctica have been cooling in recent decades, the longer 50-year trend depicts that, on average, temperatures are rising across the continent." I haven't read the Nature article yet. I hope it has a bit more detail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You might want to check out what CO2 does exactly, to heat rays.

    Radiant heat, causing a frequency or wavelength of 2.5 microns, is not to my knowledge effected by CO2 in any strange way.
    You're right but are ignoring the fact that at earth's surface emission is mostly from about 5 to about 30 microns. Co2 almost blocks IR in the ~14 to 18 microns band, which is near the peak wavelength of IR emission--particularly in the dry regions such as the entire depth of the atmosphere at high latitudes (e.g. arctic)and higher elevations in the lower latitudes where IR bands aren't already blocked by water vapor.
    When you say it blocks IR in the 14-18 micron range. Are you saying that at this frequency it is converted to another frequency of heat? Or that the heat is imparted to the carbon dioxide at those frequencies?

    I guess what I am saying is, that short range heat rays, that we get from a warm ocean, in the 14 to 18 micron range. Do not transmit long range well to begin with. They rely on a cooling of objects in their vicinity. And a gradual passing of heat through the layers of air. This mostly occurs at night.

    True radiant heat is a longer range heat and of a higher frequency. And can penetrate CO2. And can carry heat off at night.

    But all this aside, because it takes in to many aspects in my opinion. But I would love to nail down, what is and is not true about IR. I am not avoiding it.

    But, look at the water itself. As the bulk of the water reaches 41 degrees Fahrenheit it sinks.

    Every morning the sun comes out and blasts only the surface once the bulk is below forty one degrees. The surface super heats. Abnormally heats. While not allowing the surface to mix with the bulk of the water. There is a powerful sedentary effect involved.

    This sets up for the cooling effect, that counters the shrinking ice packs. It is a two fold thing with water.

    The water below 40 degrees rising to the surface is one phase, in the coldest regions to keep heat in.

    As the ice packs recede we lose our blanket.
    The extra exposed cold water sinking is the second phase in the warmer regions it keeps the bulk of the water from heating. It keeps the super heated water on the surface. Which causes it to quickly lend its heat back to the night sky.

    I would love to get into the wave lengths, and what infrared is and is not capable of. However I have so much conflicting information in front of me on the subject. That it will take me some time to figure out what is or is not legit. Before I put my name on it.

    At different times different frequencies are called IR.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When you say it blocks IR in the 14-18 micron range. Are you saying that at this frequency it is converted to another frequency of heat? Or that the heat is imparted to the carbon dioxide at those frequencies?
    Both. At earth's surface temperatures, that range is near to the IR peaks emissions. Some of the energy absorbed is thermalized by collision with other molecules (which means the surrounding air warms), while some is irradiated near the same frequency but in all directions which means there's less heading towards space.


    I guess what I am saying is, that short range heat rays, that we get from a warm ocean, in the 14 to 19 micron range. Do not transmit long range well to begin with. They rely on a cooling of objects in their vicinity. And a gradual passing of heat through the layers of air. This mostly occurs at night.
    I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. More IR is emitted from the surface (land or sea) during the day than night, simply because it's generally warmer. Also most large natural solids and liquids are excellent IR emitters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. More IR is emitted from the surface (land or sea) during the day than night, simply because it's generally warmer. Also most large natural solids and liquids are excellent IR emitters.
    The cold waters around 41 degrees, allow the water to super heat at the surface during the day. The hot water at the surface does not blend well with the water below. Because of an easily demonstrable sedentary situation that forms.

    You can easily have a twenty degree difference in temperature within six to twelve inches from the surface, on a calm day.

    This hot surface does create heat emissions. But it is of little importance. It only heats the air above it. As soon as night comes that is removed in minutes.

    The hot surface is a block or blanket against the heat. The tiny surface volume makes little difference to the temperature of the ocean as a whole.

    Only heat can stop heat. So the surface of the ocean must heat in order to stop the massive volume of heat at the surface, from heating the entire volume of water.

    As soon as night falls, the heat in the surface is sucked away in minutes.

    Experienced Winter Divers know this well. I have personally experienced this many times. You do not check the surface temperature and go diving. You have to send a probe down to get an actual overall temperature reading.

    I know what you are saying though about the infrared. You are saying that the emissions are in a range that the CO2 may be heated by.

    I am saying that the air being heated above, is not really important compared to the thermal blanket created by the hot surface, and cold water just underneath it.

    I am curious though as to why the IR wavelength is not shorter? My experience with radiant heat has always shown, it very easily passes through gases, even carbon dioxide, leaving almost no heat in its path. It passes right through glass and even certain mirrors. Without heating the mirror, even in the dark unlit band.

    It does heat a human body.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. More IR is emitted from the surface (land or sea) during the day than night, simply because it's generally warmer. Also most large natural solids and liquids are excellent IR emitters.
    I am from the old school. I was taught there was the dark heat band. Heat like you would get from a hot piece of metal, not glowing, or it could be glowing.

    And then there was the infrared band. Actually below regular dark heat, and of lower frequency. The infrared band does not really output heat. But rather another form of energy. This energy was capable of almost radio wave like travel but it was not radio waves. It was of a higher frequency then radio waves.

    More recently some claim that the infrared emission from an infrared diode like in a channel changer, will cause digital cameras to pick up a white emission from the diode that cannot be seen by the human eye. I have seen this it is interesting.

    I know from filming radiant heating equipment of substantial output that the camera is not effected by these types of equipment.

    Faster or of higher frequency then regular heat was light.

    Then there was the higher frequency Ultra Violet, similar to infrared, in invisibility to the human. With higher frequency then light. Also invisible.

    Ifrared for years was known as Unknown radiation. It was above radio and below dark heat.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    William, I understand and pretty much agree that warm surface waters don't mix well into deeper ocean especially in calm conditions. There are exceptions though mechanical mixing by wind, differences in salinity etc. often enough to push the thermocline hundreds of feet deep in the tropics.

    The infrared band does not really output heat.
    Of course it does. In fact it's the dominant band of thermal radiation the earth emits into space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Interesting discussion now.

    This got me wondering about sea surface oil. Not pollution per se - also natural oil seeps and especially (seasonal, I think) oil from marine life. As we know, tiny volumes of oil smooth vast areas of ocean surface. And that must greatly reduce evaporation as well as salt spray. I've noticed the coastal ocean surface sometimes raw and sometimes oily. Never correlated that to anything though. Would oil-filmed water reflect more radiation or less? What's the ballpark ratio of cooling due to evapouration vs. radiation?

    Often both raw and oily bands and patches are visible across the ocean, on about the same scale as clouds. So I think the oil cover may be a fickle balance (like weather), perhaps easily tilted one way or the other...?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Neat...a discussion about worldwide sea water warming and cooling without a reference to thermodynamics and the Gulf Stream, et al.

    Neat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Oh milum, how could you mention the Gulf Stream and forget about gyres. How gauche.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    William, I understand and pretty much agree that warm surface waters don't mix well into deeper ocean especially in calm conditions. There are exceptions though mechanical mixing by wind, differences in salinity etc. often enough to push the thermocline hundreds of feet deep in the tropics.

    The infrared band does not really output heat.
    Of course it does. In fact it's the dominant band of thermal radiation the earth emits into space.
    The water I am talking about is north or south of the equator by some margin. Where the water spends months at 40 degrees. This area should be expanding right now. And this will lead to a sudden cooling of the earth.

    The caps will freeze over again.

    I do not want to argue this infrared, even though I could make a great case.

    I do not follow what the modern scientist claims is true. I have found that I am more correct to go against modern science seventy percent of the time or more.

    Infrared is the only thing near the dark heat band, that could make it into space. Radiant heat needs lots of air, under pressure to be transmitted. Or solids like quartz to allow them a transportation system to communicate heat.

    There is true infrared, and you can note it is not called heat rays. True infrared does not transmit heat to the human skin or to air. Then there is dark heat, like from a hot piece of metal, or a glowing piece of metal, or a hot ocean surface. All these types of invisible heat rays transmit heat to air or to a human.

    I believe that you can estimate what the surface temperature of the ocean is, using its rather weak infrared emissions, if you amplify them. Those true infrared emissions are actually outputting very little usable heat.

    True infrared is very similar to a radio wave, from my experience, it is not a radio wave, however it is similar in some ways. That radiant heat is not.

    When you see a graphic showing the temperature of the surface water around or near the poles, it must look frightening during the day. Because of the hot surface of the ocean.

    However if you saw lower surface temperatures, it would mean that the underlying water is warm and absorbing the heat. That would be worse, and would show that the oceans are getting warmer or absorbing the heat.

    You are actually making a case for global cooling. If you are saying that the ocean surface temperatures are getting warmer just outside the frozen polar regions. That is symbolic of the oceans starting a very long, very deep cooling cycle.

    The hottest surface temperatures come from a very solidly cooled 40 degree water temperature below.

    Buy oil stocks. It is going to get cold especially in the Northern part of America. My official forecast.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When you see a graphic showing the temperature of the surface water around or near the poles, it must look frightening during the day. Because of the hot surface of the ocean.
    Actually we see nothing of the sort even under calm conditions the diurnal range is barely perceptible--usually less than 1 degree.

    For the most part, I'm not understanding your sea temperature explanations. Odd statements like this "Radiant heat needs lots of air, under pressure to be transmitted. " are really off kilter. Radiant heat, like all thermal radiation(IR or visible), transmits best in a vacuum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When you see a graphic showing the temperature of the surface water around or near the poles, it must look frightening during the day. Because of the hot surface of the ocean.
    Actually we see nothing of the sort even under calm conditions the diurnal range is barely perceptible--usually less than 1 degree.

    For the most part, I'm not understanding your sea temperature explanations. Odd statements like this "Radiant heat needs lots of air, under pressure to be transmitted. " are really off kilter. Radiant heat, like all thermal radiation(IR or visible), transmits best in a vacuum.
    In a relative vacuum, one that is man made in a lab. A warm piece of metal is not going to transmit its heat well. Because the little bit of air in the vacuum, will raise in temperature around the metal so easily, that it stops the radiation. There is not much air in the best vacuum we can make on earth. So you will have nothing to carry the heat. Or close radiant emission.

    Before I go on. Do you know how insulators work? All of them. Electrical, heating and cooling?

    They raise in temperature or electrical voltage faster then the object you are trying to insulate the electricity or heat from. The only thing that stops heat is heat.

    When you calculate for a freezer, the size of the compressor, evaporator, and condenser. You calculate for the weight of the freezer itself, and then the weight of the air, that you will be working with. In order to calculate how quickly you can move the temperature in the freezer from any given temperature.

    The heavier, the colder and denser the air, in the freezer, the more BTU's it can relay. The more BTU's you will need to raise or lower it in temperature. The same is true of air, a vacuum will require less BTU's to raise in temperature, however it can transmit less BTU's because of this.

    A vacuum of air will raise the air temperature in the vacuum quickly to blanket a warm object in the vacuum. Creating a good insulation.

    There will be no weight of material to carry the heat off. In a house when you heat air, if you do not circulate the air. It will blanket the hot object and the heat will not move around the house.

    Adding heavy water vapor to the air, transmits many times more heat then dry air.

    You cannot feel the radiant heat from hot water circulated base board heaters. Sometimes called hydronic heat. By just turning your hand towards the baseboard heater to feel the heat rays.

    The temperature of the baseboard may only be 140 degrees, it could be hotter. But the set point today is around 140 degrees.

    If convection currents did not pass over the baseboard heater, and actually heat the physical air, with the close heat rays from the heater. You would not get heating in your home.

    Now the surface of the ocean, is not nearly that hot. So the heat rays are going to be less then that of a baseboard heater. Most will confirm by actual testing that the baseboard itself around 140 degrees gives off no "far" radiation. It is a very close heat radiation.

    As you increase the frequency of an object emitting heat, to a wavelength of around 2.5 microns. You can feel the heat rays a good distance away by just turning your hand towards them. These will travel through a vacuum. As light does. Because these rays are almost always accompanied by light. But I believe you can create them without light.

    So it is all relative to me. As I said, this is a big subject. I think we would need another topic to discuss infrared, what it is, and what it was.

    I am just trying to put the real effects of ocean heating and cooling into the light.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Oh milum, how could you mention the Gulf Stream and forget about gyres. How gauche.
    Shoot, Pong, I was gauche before it was cool to be gauche, you know, like back in 1979 when Sir Fred Hoyle and that Indian guy wrote "ICE" - remember?

    Sir Fred said that the oceans moderated the Earth's atmospheric temperature and the "gyrations" of the "gyres" did the moderation by this process: pole flowing equatoral waters cooled and circled ( the Coriolis effect) and then sank (high salinty) beneath warm equatorial seas that then pushed up other cold but warmer deep water to be warmed further by the hot equatorial Sun. Repeat, ad infinitum, or maybe not.

    Do you find that idea antiquated? Fred and the Indian guy computed that the heat stored in the oceans, after a 100 year trigger, would be depleated in about 500 years and then the big freeze would set in for another 100,000 years.

    But hey, cheer up, the last Ice Age gave us us - the best swinging hope for continuing our choice of a desired biological make-up for our planet. But sadly, hedonistic fools have cornered our science and they lust not for truth but for our bucks.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    A warm piece of metal is not going to transmit its heat well. Because the little bit of air in the vacuum, will raise in temperature around the metal so easily, that it stops the radiation.
    You've got it backwards. It's insulated because radiation is the only way it can loose energy. The other ways such as conduction with surrounding materials and thermal diffusion from gas molecules collisions are removed. Not only will it radiate if surrounded by a vacuum--its ability to radiate is optimized. Usually though for metals conduction with surrounding materials is the dominant way it looses energy.

    Milum the oceans play a huge role in regulating climate, they are huge reservoirs of both heat and green house gases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Actually we see nothing of the sort even under calm conditions the diurnal range is barely perceptible--usually less than 1 degree.
    I am saying that if you looked at the actual surface temperature of the ocean in sunlight. It would probably be very inaccurate compared to the temperature of the underlying bulk of the water.

    I would get a real thermometer then. Because I know the surface super heats in sunlight, when the bulk of the water is 40 degrees. You get very abnormal heating on the surface.

    Another thing that might be important and we are not highlighting. Is that if the air temperature is below forty degrees. If the surface of the water is below 40 degrees. We are not warming.

    You really are not going to get anything less then forty degrees to circulate around the world.

    In other words the only times that matter, are in early fall, late spring, and the summer months, where the air temperature and the waters surface temperature might be above 40 degrees.
    That is the only thing that will effect the whole oceans temperature. These are the times that you will find the surface is much hotter then the bulk of the water underneath.


    Any temperature much lower and it could not be circulated. It would be ice or slush.

    If the water goes below 40 degrees it rises to the surface and is heated by the sun more quickly because it is so cold. A higher temperature differential, will cause a faster heating and cooling. If you can get the two substances of different temperature in contact with one another.

    That is why the hotter surface of the ocean compared to the bulk of the water, is not a problem. It does not create global warming, it creates a global cooling. Because the heat is separated from the bulk of the water. Through a sedentary layering. An insulator is formed.

    One other thing here is that I think we may be talking about different areas. You may be talking about an area that only sees a surface temperature of 32 degrees all year long. Obviously that is not going to heat the 40 degree circulating water below.

    I am talking about areas near the poles. That are now being feed with much colder water all year round by the exposed poles.

    I have never heard anyone say that the ice caps do not hold the heat in. Has this changed in some way, if only in view point?

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Actually we see nothing of the sort even under calm conditions the diurnal range is barely perceptible--usually less than 1 degree.
    I am saying that if you looked at the actual surface temperature of the ocean in sunlight. It would probably be very inaccurate compared to the temperature of the underlying bulk of the water.

    I would get a real thermometer then. Because I know the surface super heats in sunlight, when the bulk of the water is 40 degrees. You get very abnormal heating on the surface.
    William, we use actual thermometers mounted on hundreds of buoys which measure ocean surface temperature everyday. You can pull many of them up and look at them yourself.
    There's a UK summation of average dally temperature range. As you can see the daily range is very small and most pronounced in the tropics.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    A warm piece of metal is not going to transmit its heat well. Because the little bit of air in the vacuum, will raise in temperature around the metal so easily, that it stops the radiation.
    You've got it backwards. It's insulated because radiation is the only way it can loose energy. The other ways such as conduction with surrounding materials and thermal diffusion from gas molecules collisions are removed. Not only will it radiate if surrounded by a vacuum--its ability to radiate is optimized. Usually though for metals conduction with surrounding materials is the dominant way it looses energy.

    Milum the oceans play a huge role in regulating climate, they are huge reservoirs of both heat and green house gases.
    If you bring the metal to a high temperature as in an x-ray tube or light bulb, sure it will radiate, heat and electrons. But look at the wave length. It is right before the light octaves. That is why it transmits through a vacuum.

    A warm piece of metal is different then a hot piece of metals output. It will not conduct unless you heat things very close to it, and then circulate those objects to heat others.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    Milum, the oceans play a huge role in regulating climate, they are huge reservoirs of both heat and green house gases.
    Do tell.

    Your point is...?

    Good God, Lynx, you don't think that life-giving CO2 is a TOXIC gas do you?

    Do you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Actually we see nothing of the sort even under calm conditions the diurnal range is barely perceptible--usually less than 1 degree.
    I am saying that if you looked at the actual surface temperature of the ocean in sunlight. It would probably be very inaccurate compared to the temperature of the underlying bulk of the water.

    I would get a real thermometer then. Because I know the surface super heats in sunlight, when the bulk of the water is 40 degrees. You get very abnormal heating on the surface.
    William, we use actual thermometers mounted on hundreds of buoys which measure ocean surface temperature everyday. You can pull many of them up and look at them yourself.
    There's a UK summation of average dally temperature range. As you can see the daily range is very small and most pronounced in the tropics.

    So do I. And the temperature difference can be that of a warm bathtub of water, at the surface, and just underneath it can be 40 degrees.

    Can that water lay there on the surface all night and dissipate heat sure. That is why it is so nice to live around the water.

    We are always ten degrees warmer in the winter then inland. And about ten degrees cooler in the summer then inland. It is because of the water temperature on the surface.

    But the underlying global cooling and heating water supply, the bulk of the ocean, is at another temperature.

    You can get, right at the surface on a calm day, many degrees difference caused by the sun. The top foot of water. Can super heat over the cold 40 degree water. I have personally experienced it in late winter. It is this thin layer of sedentary heated water that protects the underlying ocean.

    The ocean would be a hot bathtub by midsummer if this was not so.

    It is an insulator that raises in temperature to keep the ocean cool. Bacteria and algae could grow in these conditions and temperatures, even in winter months.

    Your chart is probably designed to show the constancy of the bulk of the surface water. I could only guess at the depth.

    I am saying that the top foot. Is capable of creating an awesome insulator against the suns rays. Amazing insulator.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    "Radiant heat needs lots of air, under pressure to be transmitted."
    __________________________________________________ _____

    VENUS has a calcuated atmosphere that is five times the density of Earth's.

    Get it?

    You are right, McCromick, may God bless you and your kin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If you bring the metal to a high temperature as in an x-ray tube or light bulb, sure it will radiate, heat and electrons. But look at the wave length. It is right before the light octaves. That is why it transmits through a vacuum.
    A warm piece of metal is different then a hot piece of metals output.
    If you take the same metal to 1 degree above absolute zero it still radiates, just much less thermal radiation and at a lower peak frequency in accordance with Planck's law.

    It will not conduct unless you heat things very close to it
    I won't conduct at all unless something is in contact with in. This is why your metal surrounded by a vacuum looses energy at a slow rate--it still radiates energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    "Radiant heat needs lots of air, under pressure to be transmitted."
    __________________________________________________ _____

    VENUS has a calcuated atmosphere that is five times the density of Earth's.

    Get it?

    You are right, McCromick, may God bless you and your kin.
    Unfortunately William's confusing conduction, convection, thermal diffusion with radiation and it's led him to some darn odd conclusions--despite the ocean surface temperature data.

    William the super warming idea is a bit strange. I'll try to explain a bit more. Consider thermal conductivity of water is among the highest of all liquids. Even in completely calm conditions, that nearly never happens in the ocean, heat is able to conduct itself down. Day light also penetrates a considerable distance and in one day makes a relatively minor contribution of energy compared to the total heat capacity of the penetrated depth. All these are why actual measured differences between ocean surface day and night temperatures amount, on average, to a fraction of a degree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    "Radiant heat needs lots of air, under pressure to be transmitted."
    __________________________________________________ _____

    VENUS has a calcuated atmosphere that is five times the density of Earth's.

    Get it?

    You are right, McCromick, may God bless you and your kin.
    I do not know much about Venus or its atmosphere. I will check it out.


    You know, Lynx probably works with stiffs in his field, that would not even talk to us. Ha-ha.

    He might be our only link to modern science. Ha-ha.

    We should get all the information about where modern science is going before we run him off or get run off. Ha-ha.

    Just kidding Lynx, it just seems that way. Ha-ha.

    God bless you and yours milum.

    And you and yours too Lynx.

    God bless everyone.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    "Radiant heat needs lots of air, under pressure to be transmitted."
    __________________________________________________ _____

    VENUS has a calcuated atmosphere that is five times the density of Earth's.

    Get it?

    You are right, McCromick, may God bless you and your kin.
    Unfortunately William's confusing conduction, convection, thermal diffusion with radiation and it's led him to some darn odd conclusions--despite the ocean surface temperature data.

    William the super warming idea is a bit strange. I'll try to explain a bit more. Consider thermal conductivity of water is among the highest of all liquids. Even in completely calm conditions, that nearly never happens in the ocean, heat is able to conduct itself down. Day light also penetrates a considerable distance and in one day makes a relatively minor contribution of energy compared to the total heat capacity of the penetrated depth. All these are why actual measured differences between ocean surface day and night temperatures amount, on average, to a fraction of a degree.
    What is the difference right at the surface, top few inches. On a warm calm day in late winter, on a very clear sunny day, at the highest temperature reading of the day. Compared to the lowest temperature of the day. In the northeast Atlantic region?

    Heat in water does not move down well at all. Especially when the water at the bottom is 40 degrees.

    Do you know how you melt ice around a boat? You create a bubbling system that raises the 40 degree water at the bottom, in a constant convection caused by the bubbles, against the bottom of the ice. Or you can use a propeller on a long shaft to bring up the water.

    The ice keeps the water underneath warm. And keeps it from freezing.

    Water at forty degrees does not move upwards at all, it is as heavy as water gets. Not for any other temperature water will the forty degree water move upwards. The forty degree water actually has a global level. As that level raises and expands outward, you will see it will get colder on earth.

    The opposite is true in sunlight. The hot water at the surface from the sunlight will not move down if it is above 40 degrees. The hotter the better. Just like the cold water from the ice will not move down to the forty degree water. Forty degree water is as heavy as it gets.

    The sunlight, mostly penetrates the surface of the water as heat or red band light. It heats mostly the surface of the water. If you have ever gone diving you would know this to be true. You can see the tremendous loss of light in sea water as you go down even a few feet.

    The green and ultra violet light that do penetrate deep, do not carry heat with it that the water can absorb.

    I am not aiming to confuse anything. God is just that good.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    [quote="William McCormick"]
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    "Radiant heat needs lots of air, under pressure to be transmitted."
    __________________________________________________ _____

    You know, Lynx probably works with stiffs in his field, that would not even talk to us. Ha-ha.

    He might be our only link to modern science. Ha-ha.

    We should get all the information about where modern science is going before we run him off or get run off. Ha-ha.

    Just kidding Lynx, it just seems that way. Ha-ha.
    Actually I'm a Soldier--stiffs wouldn't be a good description for most of us.

    Last point before I turn in for the night, I don't you realize that maximum density temperature is quite a bit lower in sea water than fresh water. Sea ice often has a hard time forming because it's actually more dense than most of the water below it and keeps overturning down to several hundred meters.

    I've lost track why you thought this important though. The tropical oceans have large temperature stratification, yet quite warm down to several hundred meters. And of course it's tropically warm near the surface as it is on the land etc where most of the biomass lives--including us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    the temperature difference can be that of a warm bathtub of water, at the surface, and just underneath it can be 40 degrees.
    I cant' confirm that phenomenon; something's wrong with my bathtub.

    ...

    Okay since I happen to have a tub full of warm water I'm testing now. Brought water up to nice hot, let settle. Then I gently released a bag of cold (~5) water at the plug (the lowest point). Slooowly dipping my hand I can definitely feel the cold down there now. Let's give her five minutes...

    ...

    At first I thought it dissipated, but it's still there nearly as cool as before, only lower now.

    After the tub cools I'll lay some bags of hot water on the surface and gently let the water out.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    [quote="Lynx_Fox"]
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    "Radiant heat needs lots of air, under pressure to be transmitted."
    __________________________________________________ _____

    You know, Lynx probably works with stiffs in his field, that would not even talk to us. Ha-ha.

    He might be our only link to modern science. Ha-ha.

    We should get all the information about where modern science is going before we run him off or get run off. Ha-ha.

    Just kidding Lynx, it just seems that way. Ha-ha.
    Actually I'm a Soldier--stiffs wouldn't be a good description for most of us.

    Last point before I turn in for the night, I don't you realize that maximum density temperature is quite a bit lower in sea water than fresh water. Sea ice often has a hard time forming because it's actually more dense than most of the water below it and keeps overturning down to several hundred meters.

    I've lost track why you thought this important though. The tropical oceans have large temperature stratification, yet quite warm down to several hundred meters. And of course it's tropically warm near the surface as it is on the land etc where most of the biomass lives--including us.
    Ice and cold water above 40 degrees floats to the surface. No doubts about it.

    The only way to melt ice, is by raising the warm water two to three feet below the surface of the ice, up to the ice. It immediately starts to melt the ice.

    I believe a very high percentage of the ocean is actually at its maximum density and at a temperature of around 40 degrees.

    Sea ice has a hard time forming because every morning the sun comes out and heats the surface water, often way above the fresh water freezing point.

    We used to get solid ice usually towards the end of January or early February. It was not the temperature that mattered for a single day. You needed a few days in a row that were below 20 degrees Fahrenheit. To create a thick or deep, very cold surface on the water. Right underneath that 25 degree water was 40 degree water. That is how we melted the ice.

    Even after a couple days of severe cold, the water would not freeze. Because it takes time to create that insulation layer between the 40 degree water and the 25 degree water on the surface. The layer of very cold water has to get deeper before it can freeze.

    Sea water is one of the worst transmitters of heat I have ever seen. It is an awesome insulator.

    I used to set up bubbling systems, I know this stuff first hand. And anyone else that does this, knows this too.

    When I was younger, a freakish, warm day in March, had my friend and I feeling the surface of the canal. Sometimes the ice is just melting at this time at the banks of the canal.

    The water was actually giving off a bit of a vapor that is how hot it was. Invisible vapor but you could feel the damp warm vapor. I loved to swim. I put my hand down about one foot, that is as deep as I could reach and it was warm. Warmer then I had felt it in the summer.

    The water was still, the sun was bright. I strip down to my undershorts hand my friend my clothes and say I will be back for them later. I jump in. Let me say "I am sure of how good an insulator water is". I have no doubts about it.

    It was so cold that, I did not need to breath while swimming under water. I swam a couple hundred yards under water and I needed no air. My body was instantly cooled off.

    I used to navigate a boat out to the ocean, and I have spent some time out there. The same is true of the ocean. If it is a calm day. And there can be days that it gets calm as glass. The surface of the water can actually give off vapor even on a cold day in the sun.

    You can easily feel the difference in the surface temperature of the water, and then the temperature of objects that come up from the bottom. Night and day difference. No doubts about it.

    Water is one of the best insulators. Because it raises in temperature so quickly when in contact with something. It sets up layers of gradient temperature the block heat. Just like a diode blocks electricity. By setting up different gradient layers of electron abundance.

    You can only stop heat with more heat. Nothing else will stop heat. You can only stop electricity with more electricity.

    So many young guys misunderstand this today. They do not understand that an insulator, raises in surface voltage faster then copper or a silver wire. Insulation against heat raises in temperature so quickly that it repels incoming heat and so only conducts a small amount of heat.

    Metal raises in temperature slowly, and therefore conducts heat well. Water raises in temperature very quickly at the surface. Air even faster. That is why they are great insulators.

    When you heat a pot of water on the stove, this is convection at work, not at all how water naturally transmits heat from the surface, the heat created by the sun.

    Nature lovers and fishermen know that the bait fish love to swim in that top foot of water. It is warmer then the water just below. By a good margin. You can reach in the water in early spring on a bright sunny calm day. And feel bath tub water at the surface.

    In the ocean you can feel a lack of that instant stinging cold on the same kind of calm sunny day, at the surface. But when you pull up the anchor you know it is cold down there.

    I am not making anything up or confusing anything that I know of. If I have confused something let me know. I will fix it and admit it.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    the temperature difference can be that of a warm bathtub of water, at the surface, and just underneath it can be 40 degrees.
    I cant' confirm that phenomenon; something's wrong with my bathtub.

    ...

    Okay since I happen to have a tub full of warm water I'm testing now. Brought water up to nice hot, let settle. Then I gently released a bag of cold (~5) water at the plug (the lowest point). Slooowly dipping my hand I can definitely feel the cold down there now. Let's give her five minutes...

    ...

    At first I thought it dissipated, but it's still there nearly as cool as before, only lower now.

    After the tub cools I'll lay some bags of hot water on the surface and gently let the water out.
    I just saw this post, way to go.

    Individuals in heating and cooling, that work and engineer, hot water storage tanks on site, have done your experiment. Accidentally sometimes. Ha-ha.

    Sometimes it can be embarrassing if you do create a design that will not draw the cold water from the bottom for heating by the boiler. You cut down on your storage capacity drastically. Ha-ha.

    Most of the grizzly site guys just throw away the plans if they do not allow for the water from the bottom of the tank to be drawn off to the heat exchanger for heating. They just set it up right.

    The deeper your pot or tank the better and more outrageous your results will be.

    That is cool, I love hands on.

    I suspect some of the input from the forum is very not hands on sometimes.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    Ice and cold water above 40 degrees floats to the surface. No doubts about it.

    ...

    I am not making anything up or confusing anything that I know of. If I have confused something let me know. I will fix it and admit it.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I don't think you're making anything up deliberately. Though you've got some odd idea. As I've shown you in the ocean we don't see large surface temperature swings--probably because it's a long ways from your idealized or calm conditions.
    Yes water does stratify, I've said as much, and we both agree the majority of the oceans is quite cold, near the maximum density of sea water--whether it's in the tropic or polar regions. But rather than "super heated layer," or really thin layer on top, the warmer surface waters are often several hundred meters deep--by a combination of mechanical mixing (wind), conduction (slower), and it's the maximum depth light can penetrate and warm the water, (there's no such thing as "useable heat"--all of it is being converted into heating the water).

    Anyhow...given all that I still don't see how you think it relates to warming ocean waters actually some kind of evidence of global cooling. I'd like to see you try to expand on that point more so I understand your concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    Ice and cold water above 40 degrees floats to the surface. No doubts about it.

    ...

    I am not making anything up or confusing anything that I know of. If I have confused something let me know. I will fix it and admit it.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I don't think you're making anything up deliberately. Though you've got some odd idea. As I've shown you in the ocean we don't see large surface temperature swings--probably because it's a long ways from your idealized or calm conditions.
    Yes water does stratify, I've said as much, and we both agree the majority of the oceans is quite cold, near the maximum density of sea water--whether it's in the tropic or polar regions. But rather than "super heated layer," or really thin layer on top, the warmer surface waters are often several hundred meters deep--by a combination of mechanical mixing (wind), conduction (slower), and it's the maximum depth light can penetrate and warm the water, (there's no such thing as "useable heat"--all of it is being converted into heating the water).

    Anyhow...given all that I still don't see how you think it relates to warming ocean waters actually some kind of evidence of global cooling. I'd like to see you try to expand on that point more so I understand your concept.
    You know how good ice acts as an insulator. I mean there is no question ice is an amazing insulator. You can survive in minus 100 degree temperatures in an ice structure.

    We know that the water under the caps is about 40 degrees the bulk of it. Not right next to the ice. But within a few fathoms.

    Since the nights can reach minus one hundred degrees near the poles for days on end, I think we could agree that the ice packs keep the ocean warm. If you applied that kind of lack of heat to the bottom of that amount of water. It would be frozen in no time. Frozen solid.

    I am saying that removing the polar caps, will create a global cooling.

    For over three hundred years that can be attested to, the polar caps have been receding. Every 75 to 100 years you get a bull market rally of the caps. I cannot say if the caps have to recede more to end the oceans larger warming phase or not. However when the receding is well noticed and pronounced it is usually about when the cycle reverses. If only as a rally of the caps. It is only a guess. Believe me all my life I have watched things rather well. And I know I can always be surprised by nature.

    It probably does not matter much to us. We will be just fine. I would suspect that we will use a bit more fuel oil on average as the swing takes place. You might get violent shifts in temperature near the poles or the equator though.

    During extreme warming trends hundreds of years ago, many Alaskans were probably caught in a swift and outrageous temperature change for the worse. That is usually the case. Nature makes you comfortable and cozy. Then it kills you. Ha-ha. Just like a wild animal, just when you are ready to call it your friend it bites you.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    I have spent the past 3-4 days gathering data, making charts, and finalizing my opinion before I present what I have to the rest of you. I should hope that any response takes equal time and seriousness in objectivity.

    Before I begin let me clear up three things:
    1. GISS data is observed in many cases to be collected by faulty weather monitoring stations (see prior links in this thread)
    2. Ocean locations are subject to storms moving heat around, and are not a good determiner of temperature
    3. Satellite data is the most accurate type.



    Note: I used a sequential 5-year analysis (1950-1955, 1951-1956, etc) to eliminate selection bias, but the final 5 years cannot apply to this. Hence the flat last 5 years

    My strong suspicions of the validity of GISS data became confirmed when I created a chart with the publicly available data. Plotting the ground data from 1880-1978 or 1979 and then using satellite data from UAH or RSS from 1979 to 2008, you get a graph that's almost perfectly in agreement. GISS data seems almost perfectly in line with satellite data at a 1978 cutoff point. After which, as my next chart shows, the difference mysteriously jumps to 0.5C or more in some locations, which leads me to believe the data has been tampered with (shown below)



    Again, satellite data is free from bias and has been ritually adjusted over the years to ensure perfect accuracy. Isn't it curious how, in my first chart, GISS data more or less agrees with satellite data trends until 1978-9? Why does NASA/NOAA still use GISS data when it's obviously flawed? This link here details a few of the reasons that I agree with, and also happens to advocate splicing the data at more or less the same cutoff point I do.

    As for using the arctic as an example of serious global warming, this link offers a logical explanation, and includes a chart of history for the cyclic receeding-renewal of ice at the poles. This is not in correlation with CO2 climb because it's cyclic.



    As some may notice, I included CO2 data in an improper manner (CO2 is not measured in C), but my software is limited so you may need to forgive me. What this chart shows is the climb of CO2 (divided by 100 for scale) and the climb of both GISS and UAH temperatures. As one can see, the climb of CO2 is rather slow, though is kicking off in recent years, but still does not show that it increases temperature. Indeed, the '98 event kicked off the CO2 release even more than before. If you measure carefully on this graph, you can see a slight spike in CO2 which continues at an increased rate of climb. The data series (again, divided by 100) is: 3.62, 3.63, 3.67, 3.68, 3.69 for years 1996, 97, 98, 99, 2000.

    I believe that this provides ample evidence for the fact CO2 is being controlled by the temperature, and hardly the other way around. Especially since, though CO2 continued to climb, temperatures dropped back down. So the REAL question here, the ULTIMATE question that would tell everyone what's the true cause, lies in what caused the 1998 heat spike and resultant warming. The most obvious cause? The sun, of course, so lets examine some solar data.

    This link here links to a science article about a solar flare predition in 97, and the further prediction that they will get much worse through 2000.

    Nasa itself recorded a lot of solar activity in 98.

    And this link strives to explain how many ways the sun affects Earths climate. Not just sunspots, but minor changes in every aspect of the sun can cause changes. Although I cannot find an exact cause to the 1998 spike (the one that caused El Nino no doubt), there is enough evidence to suggest the sun was unusually active that year.

    One of the main arguments for solar induced warming is the use of other planetary data. As this link explains, though, some of the data suggesting Mars is warming has not been very conclusive. It makes me wonder, though, why NASA hasn't conducted long term temperature studies of other planets yet.

    So as we move on into more recent studies, we find This link, which suggest two things: Life on mars, and sun induced warming. As this data here is compiled by NASA itself and presented in a scientific manner (unlike the study shown by the prior link), there's more hard evidence. That very link cites another article that also uses better evidence.

    In fact, many articles linked to from this same website provide evidence for sun induced warming. However, there are dissents of course.

    This link provides what is most likely a death blow against solar warming, however...notice that it uses GISS data? The same data I showed to be off by 0.5C at most when compared to satellite data? Also notice that the charts used cut off before 1998 and any recent period? The amount of bad methods used by man-made warming supporters makes me consider a conspiracy. Why am I the only one to compare the two on an objective basis?

    Unfortunately my search to produce publicily available and easily accessible solar irradiance data proved fruitless. It's almost like it's purposefully made impossible for any non-scientist to use. The only complete source I found had so much obfuscated data that it would have taken me weeks to finish a chart. Therefore, I decline to permit such a waste of time until the data is presented in a reasonable manner. CURRENT charts I found all use tampered with GISS data to prove global warming, and compariing said charts with GISS data cutoff and resumed with UAH data shows agreement (although charts I found were not anywhere near recent).

    So, in closing, my charts and links support a few things:

    1. GISS data appears to have been tampered with after 1978
    2. Satellite data is far more accurate and should be used instead after that period
    3. the 1998 temperature spike caused the rapid climb of CO2 to begin
    4. Said temperature spike was most likely caused by solar activity (according to what news articles and data I could find)
    5. More and more recent studies are supporting solar activity as the cause of warming
    6. Temperature spikes are causing the most CO2 increases (though man contributes, but not hardly as much as the sun)
    7. More data needs to be made publicly available AND easily usable in spreadsheet form before further conclusions can be reached.

    P.S: To show I am honestly attempting to provide accurate results, my spreadsheets used to compile these charts can be found here. The ads may or may not be NSFW. I don't know as I use a very large hosts file to block them. If any errors are found, corrections are very welcome.

    EDIT1: This link can be used to show what the solar irradiance was during 98-present and so on. Unfortunately the chart appears poorly made, and the source is from a devout global warming denier, so I would have preferred cross checking the data myself. Alas, I do not have time. While this does appear to fully support me, I dislike having to rely on others for accuracy (mostly because my focus on accuracy is pathological).

    EDIT2: I should fully emphasize that while I do not believe in man-made warming, I COMPLETELY support any method to reduce general pollution (not just CO2) and reduce energy/resource consumption/waste/etc for the betterment of everyone. I do not approve of dumping chemicals into rivers any more than I approve of the smog over Los Angeles. I will note, though, that I believe certain efforts (such as reforestation) are vastly overdone and are in fact harming the environment due to allowing nature to come back too rapidly; before equilibrium can be achieved.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Here is another way to look at it.

    If you have a body of water at 40 degrees. Would the body of water lose more heat exposed to minus 20 degree air, or 25 degree ice?

    I am sure the ice keeps it warm.

    When you have an alcoholic beverage, and you watch the little streamers of water from the ice sink. You are probably watching the dense water pass down through the less dense alcoholic beverage. Or your drink is not 40 degrees over all.

    Normally the cold of the ice keeps the cold water, up against the ice in the ocean. It does not circulate around and therefor does not cool the bulk of the 40 degree water underneath.

    If you circulate the water manually it melts the ice. And cools the water.

    The part about the surface heating in the sun, is just to explain why the exposed ocean surface from lack of polar caps, does not heat the underlying water. The effect is always present in hot and cold regions. And it explains why the tropical water is not a bathtub, all the way down.

    Water heats very quickly from the bottom up. It heats very poorly from the top down.

    Global cooling is a slow process. However a few thousand more square miles of water exposed to arctic air and you have yourself global cooling. At least for many years to come. Maybe the rest of our lives. If this is the peak of the ocean melting the caps. And I suspect it is.
    Because of the reported strange abnormal cold that moved into Canada and froze waterways, almost over night a few years ago. That is just such a warning.

    Extreme heat, or strange mountain snow melts in the Equator region would also support a reversal of the oceans temperature warming. The Climate does not change. It just relocates when the water cools. The cold spots get colder the hot spots get hotter.

    For us in the middle we just get more violent seasons.

    When the water warms it evens out the temperature across the face of the earth.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    ....Unfortunately my search to produce publicly available and easily accessible solar irradiance data proved fruitless. It's almost like it's purposefully made impossible for any non-scientist to use.
    Nice work, Darius. VERY nice work. You would think that the current three year drop in Earth's mean temperature whould have been sung as a paean of relief by the scientists who claim to want to save our planet from contiguous Global Warming.
    Listen... "Crickets".


    DISCLAIMER: ...I too would like to fully emphasize that while I do not believe in man-made warming, I support any method to reduce general pollution (not just CO2) and reduce energy/resource/consumption/waste for the betterment of everyone. I do not approve of dumping chemicals into rivers any more than I approve of the smog over Los Angeles. And as well, I do not support the wholesale killing of innocent kittens and sweet and kindly grandmothers.

    (In these unkind times among those who find fault with the current vogue it pays to cover all bases.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius

    Nasa itself recorded a lot of solar activity in 98.
    Not really. Sunspots were on the increase, that's why they predicted more through 2000, which is exactly what happened (posted the observed below). 1998 was so warm, specifically because of a strong El Nino/ENSO and it's contribution to global temperature annual variability. The next strong ENSO year will likely be the next global temperature record.

    Also posting another solar irradiance chart from ~1980-2000. It shows the solar cycle pretty well.

    Unfortunately my search to produce publicily available and easily accessible solar irradiance data proved fruitless. It's almost like it's purposefully made impossible for any non-scientist to use.
    Perhaps look at the sources? Data is not hard to find at all, though more charts would be nice--took me all of 2 minutes! Just a sample.
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/f...html#composite
    You are right about one thing though, NASA, NOAA etc could do a better job packaging for the public, despite the recent administration's restrictions to doing so.

    Anyhow there's so much open data at government web sites that it's hard to sort through :-(
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/

    I'll try to get to the rest of your post later.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Darius,
    I also don't see the big alarming divergence you're talking about. ( Nasa uses their surface data, because they know the satellite data also includes mid and upper tropospheric information (posted earlier in this thread) and isn't totally representative of what's happening on the surface. They also don't cover high-latitudes, something which all data sets are sparse but at least gets some coverage from direct surface observation, and where both observations, models (and other proxy data) suggest the changes are most pronounced. Your chart shows a total divergence about what? About 0.3C? (they start with about 0.3C difference)

    In truth, there is no perfect data set, though a lot of efforts to improve them of all types.


    With any surface temperature change, particular due to green house gases, we'd expect the satellite derived trends to be less. Looking at the overall trends since ~1980 this is exactly what we see. If you take them from 1980 you can see this even better:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    The only thing is that the one degree Celsius we are talking about since the 1800's is not within our level of accuracy to either confirm or deny, it being real.

    One degree in the scope your talking about and I would say great. Everything is still the same.

    Show me five or ten degrees Fahrenheit over a five year period, of the average temperature across the globe. And I would seriously start looking for some explanation.

    You can see where, claiming we have a problem with global warming, has led poor scientists to count the cubic feet of flatulence from cows to explain global warming. Come on it is getting a bit weird if you ask me very unscientific.

    The polar caps determine the temperature of the earth. If you keep the air above the water at the caps warm with man made apparatus it will heat the earth.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    In the sixties there was a real space program. It was ended in the late sixties.

    Part of the space program was about heating planets and making them habitable. Basically with radio waves. It required very small apparatus to carry out the task.

    The space program came to an almost immediate halt, when they heard what some defense contractors were prepared to do to earth, or any planet.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Show me five or ten degrees Fahrenheit over a five year period, of the average temperature across the globe. And I would seriously start looking for some explanation.
    I'm not sure why your here in that case. The only things that produce those kinds of abrupt changes would be super volcanoes that come along perhaps every 100,000 years or so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Show me five or ten degrees Fahrenheit over a five year period, of the average temperature across the globe. And I would seriously start looking for some explanation.
    I'm not sure why your here in that case. The only things that produce those kinds of abrupt changes would be super volcanoes that come along perhaps every 100,000 years or so.
    I am saying no one has set the ground rules to even come to an agreement on how we are verifying the average global temperature of the earth.

    Much of our equipment was and is based near, and where it was found to be comfortable to live. Often very different then the average. The places people like to live often hold a more even temperature. That is where a lot of the equipment was placed.

    Today they come out with new equipment, they do not offer, the precise method and timing of when samples are taken. We do not get in depth, how their equipment averages out the actual surface temperature to the bulk of the surface.

    Different materials will cause different effects to sensing equipment.

    If they are using Infrared they may be off as much as five degrees. By their own equipment's actual capability. Cross rays from hotter locations may also block true readings by satellites. If you heard all the calibrating, all the formulating involved, no one would say this new method, could be more accurate.

    Could you use it to find the approximate temperature of the earths surface or alert the world to some natural or man made disaster? Sure. I love the idea.

    But you say you can use it to tell, whether or not the average temperature of the earth, is raising or lowering over hundreds of years, by as little as one degree Celsius, that is just nonsense. To many variables.

    Heat rays from other sources cause a block to Infrared rays. That is why planes drop flares. The flare itself does not always draw in an infrared seeking rocket.
    However it can cause the infrared seeking rocket to lose the plane. Just by the rays from the flare, not straight on. If you could see the rays from the flares as an infrared seeking rocket does. You would know that it is like a pile of hay, but composed of heat rays.

    Some of this equipment rejects ambient radiation and just focuses on the location in question. However this adjustment can alter the reading when you are working within one degree Celsius.

    No one here has shown anything close to global warming. And I say, do not feel bad, no one has ever been able to. And 99 percent of the world has tried for thousands of years.

    You had people afraid to make fires, because they thought it brought the volcanic activity. This global warming thing is not new.

    I myself once remembered the snow up to my chest. And for a few years as an adult, I did have this idea that we don't get snow like that anymore. But then one day I remembered I was only four feet tall then. Ha-ha. the twenty eight inch snow and drifts were up to my chest.

    But we had higher snows since, They were only just above my knee.



    Is there anyway to remove whatever is expanding the window, it makes reading the text very hard?

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    I cannot be expected to reply with any seriousness when your own replies are already answered by something I wrote previously. It's clear by your own responses that you are unwilling to read all the data I have presented before formulating your opinion, which means your opinion is more or less set in stone. "Man made warming is a fact, so I need not consider much evidence to the contrary".

    I expect a real response from anyone that disagrees. Preferably someone willing to take the time and actually analyze the data.

    P.S: Your last chart in your last post is completely ridiculous. Trend lines prove absolutely nothing except rate of increase, and even then it's a linear estimation at best. Also, it hides the true variation with its size. My chart is much better because it gives a long width and length to easily measure by. The year 08 is especially an indicator: The difference approaches 0.5-6C.

    If you want to show true deviation cutoff at the point of apparent corruption: 1978. Also, use chart dimensions of 20x7. It's a good standard. Your current trend for GISS data is also artificial because you use data from before the UAH/RSS charts begin (which are much lower temperatures) to artificially inflate it. God there's so much wrong with that chart it's ridiculous. The hell is that blue line?
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I am saying no one has set the ground rules to even come to an agreement on how we are verifying the average global temperature of the earth.
    What you saying is rather silly. There are pretty well established standards and means to remove errors where those standards aren't being met. Yes different agencies use slightly different methods, but generally they agree. It's also not a problem that different means to derive the surface info don't always exactly match--it they were exact matches there wouldn't be a point or need for redundant methods. Even lands stations aren't just where people are comfortable, they span the globe, many in places people don't even live, nor would they. Even where stations are placed badly, they usually still do an excellent job of matching the larger trends from adjacent stations--because the environment's particular bias, is for the most part removed from the average. This is just one example from a UK study, even roof top stations, which are placed about at badly as we can imagine, still provided useful information: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...ame_the_cities

    To highlight the impact of station placement: "From 1981 to 2006, the temperature measured at a rooftop weather station in central London rose, on average, at a rate of 0.61 degrees C per decade. During the same period, the average temperature recorded at Heathrow Airport, a semi-urban site about 25 kilometers west of central London, rose just a bit more, about 0.65 degrees C per decade. Similarly, scientists at a rural station in Rothamsted, about 39 kilometers northwest of central London, tallied a temperature increase in the same range, about 0.67 degrees C per decade during that 26-year interval."
    A whopping 0.06 difference in rise! (snicker) Or less than 5 years of the rate of increase. The studies consistently point to less than 0.1C impact from bad station placement, and that's at a 95% confidence, meaning it's probably overestimating the impact--not underestimating it as some web sights suggest. Regardless there's been a lot of work to clean up bad stations using a variety of methods, just as we try to continuously improve of remote ways of getting at the same thing.

    Last point it's pretty easy to show that anything averaged over area and time produces far more accurate information than any single point.

    You five degree and five years was the equivalent of saying I don't be worried until there's a catastrophe--since that's what it would be. Perhaps you don't realized this, but five degree and as short as a century would be a catastrophe. The whole point of concern, it that's at the upper end of what the models suggest we might be doing. Even if you don't entirely believe them-it's worth caution--because by the time we're half way there it will be too late to prevent it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    The year 08 is especially an indicator: The difference approaches 0.5-6C.
    You're own chart starts at about a 0.3C difference between the means. Yep it grows but I wanted to be sure readers understood that there's an inherent bias to the satellite data systemically colder than the actual surface measurements.

    The hell is that blue line?
    The difference between the UAH and RSS derived temperatures. The trend lines superimposed should be important because they show: The lower temperature bias of the satellite data most of the time; the difference between the 3 types of data both in trend and during the period where they agree and where they don't. It's also more current, showing up to Dec 2008, with all data showing a rise. :-)

    I guess the other thing that bothers me is this thinking that the data's being tampered with or being withheld. As I've shown the data is available and the methods almost entirely in the open--I can't imagine a more transparent process than that of climate sciences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Is there anyway to remove whatever is expanding the window, it makes reading the text very hard?
    Yep. Lynx_Fox can edit his post so the two charts won't appear side by side.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Is there anyway to remove whatever is expanding the window, it makes reading the text very hard?
    Yep. Lynx_Fox can edit his post so the two charts won't appear side by side.
    Thanks,
    Think I fixed it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You're own chart starts at about a 0.3C difference between the means. Yep it grows but I wanted to be sure readers understood that there's an inherent bias to the satellite data systemically colder than the actual surface measurements.
    ...That's not even an argument. There is no inherent bias in satellite data. The satellite data simply shows that the temperature is far cooler than what GISS data shows. Which, as I've said many times, is because GISS data stations are placed improperly (most of which are in urban areas, which generate a lot of heat). Satellite data is free from external biases.

    The hell is that blue line?
    The difference between the UAH and RSS derived temperatures. The trend lines superimposed should be important because they show: The lower temperature bias of the satellite data most of the time; the difference between the 3 types of data both in trend and during the period where they agree and where they don't. It's also more current, showing up to Dec 2008, with all data showing a rise. :-)
    You're doing it wrong. I specifically avoided using month averages because they're ridiculously short terms that should never be included. I specifically CONCENTRATED on yearly and five year averages because that's even what global warming scientists do. Weather trends follow years or dozens of years, not single months. Some years have the warmest months on record but end up the coldest year on record! Including Dec 08 is just a cheap attempt to prove your point. Even if that warming trend continues (and it's unlikely), at present all it proves is that you have NO idea how to properly compile climate data. Your averages are also NOT sequential and can suffer from a selection bias (which is another reason I chose year and five year averages).

    There is nothing to be missed here. Satellite data is accurate. GISS data is inaccurate.

    What angers me even more is the sheer stupidity of these charts. You don't even have the variance between RSS and UAH labeled as such, and furthermore the difference between the two YEARLY is almost invisible. That AND you have it in the -0.5C range rather than as a separate chart altogether. This is what I mean: CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DO NOT USE MONTHLY AVERAGES. The gradients are too small to MATTER. Leave the job to someone that actually KNOWS what they are doing.

    I guess the other thing that bothers me is this thinking that the data's being tampered with or being withheld. As I've shown the data is available and the methods almost entirely in the open--I can't imagine a more transparent process than that of climate sciences.
    That wasn't even my argument. That wasn't even it at all. The only data I could find was presented in obscure or ridiculous manners that would have taken weeks to resort for charts. It's awesome that you found some recent data. What's NOT awesome is that my charts PROVE that prior to 1978 GISS 5-year averages coincided with the climb of modern UAH and RSS data, and that only AFTER that year did GISS data start to show rapid and unrealistic climbs.

    I have NEVER claimed that data is being withheld. I DID claim that it's being presented in a manner that's simply impossible to sort through without far more effort than should be used. They MAKE charts from this data, so surely they have spreadsheets. Why not release those as well, rather than require people like me to spend several days just reorganizing the data manually!

    Edit1: Lets just add some more sarcasm here to drive home just how incompetent and unaware of it you are. Lets just not use year averages. Naw, months are too long too! Lets use weeks! No wait, days! No, no, lets choose hourly averages! That way we can pick noon to prove we're entering a global fireball phase or midnight to prove we're about to become a spherical snowball! Oh, I know! We can give the incorrect data set some extra time just to artificially inflate the dangerous increase! No, lets go even better! Lets do that from last midnight to this noon and then use satellite data from THIS midnight! There, THAT should show them! Satellite data is wrong! TRUST THAT THE SKY IS FALLING!

    EDIT2: "But...the satellites monitor the sky?"
    "TRUST THE GROUND THAT THE SKY IS FALLING!"
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I am saying no one has set the ground rules to even come to an agreement on how we are verifying the average global temperature of the earth.
    What you saying is rather silly. There are pretty well established standards and means to remove errors where those standards aren't being met. Yes different agencies use slightly different methods, but generally they agree. It's also not a problem that different means to derive the surface info don't always exactly match--it they were exact matches there wouldn't be a point or need for redundant methods. Even lands stations aren't just where people are comfortable, they span the globe, many in places people don't even live, nor would they. Even where stations are placed badly, they usually still do an excellent job of matching the larger trends from adjacent stations--because the environment's particular bias, is for the most part removed from the average. This is just one example from a UK study, even roof top stations, which are placed about at badly as we can imagine, still provided useful information: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...ame_the_cities

    To highlight the impact of station placement: "From 1981 to 2006, the temperature measured at a rooftop weather station in central London rose, on average, at a rate of 0.61 degrees C per decade. During the same period, the average temperature recorded at Heathrow Airport, a semi-urban site about 25 kilometers west of central London, rose just a bit more, about 0.65 degrees C per decade. Similarly, scientists at a rural station in Rothamsted, about 39 kilometers northwest of central London, tallied a temperature increase in the same range, about 0.67 degrees C per decade during that 26-year interval."
    A whopping 0.06 difference in rise! (snicker) Or less than 5 years of the rate of increase. The studies consistently point to less than 0.1C impact from bad station placement, and that's at a 95% confidence, meaning it's probably overestimating the impact--not underestimating it as some web sights suggest. Regardless there's been a lot of work to clean up bad stations using a variety of methods, just as we try to continuously improve of remote ways of getting at the same thing.

    Last point it's pretty easy to show that anything averaged over area and time produces far more accurate information than any single point.

    You five degree and five years was the equivalent of saying I don't be worried until there's a catastrophe--since that's what it would be. Perhaps you don't realized this, but five degree and as short as a century would be a catastrophe. The whole point of concern, it that's at the upper end of what the models suggest we might be doing. Even if you don't entirely believe them-it's worth caution--because by the time we're half way there it will be too late to prevent it.
    I work with heating and cooling equipment. I used to manufacture specialized heating equipment for industry.

    What is silly is saying that you can without error say that the earth has risen one degree Celsius over the last one hundred years.

    To real individuals that work with real instruments and real applications, you would be laughed out of the conversation. But not rudely, or with malice, but with a farther's kind of go check it out a little before you make such a statement again.

    Because you are making all scientists look anal. Especially so to real expert individuals that could show you how hard it is, to hold one degree in real life. You have no clue about what you are saying. I am being hard, because I am very nice. Not because I want to win. I will not be able to win, or have anything I already had forty plus years ago, for many years to come. Because the last generation of people like you went around taking the attention away from real issues, with anal nonsense. The government loves anal folk. It hides the governments failure.

    All this makes it look like Americans want to stop global warming. And they really do not feel it is a problem, unless scientists tell them it is.

    Global warming is not a real problem. The government is going to claim failure based on all the spending on global warming. I would rather the money go to the military and watch them kill each other everyday. At least we could honestly keep a real head count of who has died and who might still be alive. Poor science kills whole generations of individuals.

    We were ready to go to other solar systems in the late fifties and sixties. But people like you claimed we could not survive the radiation of space. They claimed that we needed a giant rocket and gantry to get enough thrust to leave orbit. They claimed that we needed an atmosphere of almost pure oxygen in the capsule. While we were able to breath mostly helium in specialized submarines.

    Three astronauts died.

    Meanwhile for fun before the Apollo missions, some Americans were sending their probes to the moon and back in eight hours. With streaming video. So you can say what you like, or try to destroy any portion of reality you wish. But you will just be turning your children into retards. The official word when these craft were spotted was they were UFO's.

    I have been sitting back in awe of how stupid Americans are my whole life. It is time for change.

    The Apollo mission was about one tenth the technology we possessed at that time. That is all the government wanted to show.

    I have given you information that you were not aware of. You did not know that the polar caps keep the earth warm. And when they recede they cool the earth off. It has been known, that is how it works for hundreds of years.

    Yet you are talking about a change that is perhaps barely a half of a degree in the last century. That is just plain crazy. Sure the government is paying for it. They love that kind of stuff. It is no good for America though.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Let me just add one more thing to huge list of sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68...eature=related

    Pen&teller provide some information I left out. Go figure. The result is the same, though: Global warming is Bullshit!.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Lynx you mentioned that my five to ten degrees was a catastrophe. I do not believe so.

    I believe there have been cases where certain areas have been hit with that kind of a change.

    But as you say if the whole globe rose five degrees Celsius over five years, it would or could indicate some kind of Catastrophe to some, or a sudden reversal in trend.

    That is normally the case. When a long trend reverses you get a slap in the face. I am just saying if a trend like that developed, I would want to know exactly what it was. At that point I would say we should at least investigate what is causing it. If only as a point for conversation. But one degree or a half a degree. Wake me when something happens.

    In real science you would get laughed out of the conversation, for one or a half a degree accuracy for such a large and complex structure as earth.

    I would suspect it was a reversal in the trend of the ocean warming. Even if it was just a bull market for the polar caps. It could create some violent swings. That might alter the average for a short time.

    But over the long haul it would all average in. The Climate does not change without serious influence from man.

    Did you read both of these texts well? Read both completely. There is a wealth of information in there. Great analogies too.

    http://www.rockwelder.com/Weather/Weather.pdf
    http://www.rockwelder.com/Chemicals/Water.pdf

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Let me just add one more thing to huge list of sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68...eature=related

    Pen&teller provide some information I left out. Go figure. The result is the same, though: Global warming is Bullshit!.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68...eature=related

    That is sweet. I wish they did not use the "F" word so much. I could have used it more.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Let me just add one more thing to huge list of sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68...eature=related

    Pen&teller provide some information I left out. Go figure. The result is the same, though: Global warming is Bullshit!.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68...eature=related

    That is sweet. I wish they did not use the "F" word so much. I could have used it more.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Me too, William McCormick, but I think that today the use of the "F" word is the childish password for a Rite of Passage into the strange world of today where boys grow up to be grown up boys. Oh well.

    And hey, Darius! Did you think for one swinging minute that your carefully prepared and well tempered post would be met in kind by robot mice and robot men who run round in robot towns?*

    Not only do they believe what they believe, they MUST believe what they have been told to believe. To believe otherwise would force them to think for themselves. Alone. And that is a scary thought.


    *Ray Bradbury
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    I work with heating and cooling equipment. I used to manufacture specialized heating equipment for industry.
    I'm happy for you. But why are you so presumptuous that people with a science background don't have practical experience? Like most meteorology, I spent several years in the field, testing, checking and maintaining stations among other duties. Had several courses specifically about instruments. Your "In real science you would get laughed out of the conversation," is pretty off the mark and unnecessary considering I was published in science....but anyhow.

    I don't do that kind of stuff anymore because in the middle of my Ph.d. my reserve duty called and pulled me into active duty Army (1991). Since I've worked a pretty typical Army officer career (logistics for another two years) but in an odd turn of fate was called to put my skills (analysis) to testing Army equipment a few years ago--which again had a lot to do with recording every manner of data--including temperatures which required some hands on.

    Again back to weather, most stations use liquid in glass types, or resistance ones--not so different from ones most of us are accustomed to, but in this case accurate and precision instruments that in reality are consistent to within 0.05C, but calibrated and certified to 0.25C. For weather instruments, precision, which is repeatability under the same conditions, is more important than accuracy. The reason is elevation and micro climatology of placement will effect the temperature anyhow--but not the absolute values of the changes.

    The other part which might take more explanation is the power of averaging that results in far more resolution than any single point is possible from. In the simplest terms if you take one sample of say a temperature within an error of say +2 or -2 C, but if you take a dozen samples you average out the errors and can reduce and improve that precision to a fraction of a degree. In weather stations, across a region and over days and years the same effect results in a error that's much more precise than any one point could be. To take another dramatic example, the same power of averaging over a large data set is used by geologist to reduce GPS errors from 10 meters, to mere millimeters--good enough to measure tectonic plate drift.

    Well and if anyone thinks ground data can get a bit confusing they really need to look at satellite derived stuff--which doesn't even start by recorded temperatures and is in constant adjustment to compensate for changing satellites, orbit drift, accumulating space dust on the lenses etc.

    And yes you should be concerned very much by 5 degrees C. The coldest ice age was only about 10 C colder--the differences should speak for themselves. It's not just highs and lows, but the depths of the extremes, and other changes to wind, snow/rain, soil moisture, and other factors that all compound to really screw stuff up. By some studies at +4C the US can no longer grow corn--imagine the turmoil that would cause.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    And hey, Darius! Did you think for one swinging minute that your carefully prepared and well tempered post would be met in kind by robot mice and robot men who run round in robot towns?*

    Not only do they believe what they believe, they MUST believe what they have been told to believe. To believe otherwise would force them to think for themselves. Alone. And that is a scary thought.


    *Ray Bradbury
    I should clarify that I spent all that work on global warming, not to specifically prove myself correct, but to fish out a more intellectual opposition. It's quite clear that everyone has already made up their mind. In spite of how the data strongly leans towards my stance, I will not be happy until someone finds something wrong with my post. Something very wrong. Glaringly so. Not "Ahurrrrrrr I can make charts too! (Except I can't)". I should also mention that one of my posts was bumped off the radar and is the last one on the prior page. Seems to have been ignored.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    And hey, Darius! Did you think for one swinging minute that your carefully prepared and well tempered post would be met in kind by robot mice and robot men who run round in robot towns?*

    Not only do they believe what they believe, they MUST believe what they have been told to believe. To believe otherwise would force them to think for themselves. Alone. And that is a scary thought.


    *Ray Bradbury
    I should clarify that I spent all that work on global warming, not to specifically prove myself correct, but to fish out a more intellectual opposition. It's quite clear that everyone has already made up their mind. In spite of how the data strongly leans towards my stance, I will not be happy until someone finds something wrong with my post. Something very wrong. Glaringly so. Not "Ahurrrrrrr I can make charts too! (Except I can't)". I should also mention that one of my posts was bumped off the radar and is the last one on the prior page. Seems to have been ignored.
    I will be honest that one degree does not mean anything to me. In proving global warming. I do understand you are just trying to get what the modern scientists are saying about global warming pinned down.

    Do you know that ambient temperature, and ambient radiation can cause a false read of several degrees.

    If these rises and falls, happen during solar flairs, it may be nothing more then the thermometer reacting to the effects, caused to the substances, the thermometer is made of.

    Power line proximity, cell phones. Could all add to some slight increase in the thermometers read. All well within the plus or minus accuracy of the thermostats being used. All this did not exist years ago. No big deal. And it may not even effect the actual temperature. Just the equipment used to check it.

    If I am not mistaken there is and was a plus or minus accuracy of plus or minus one percent of the scale. That is probably more then a degree in itself. These are scientific issues that cannot be passed.

    We have yet to leave the realm of nothing has taken place yet, to indicate global warming. By scientific method standards.

    I used to work with accurate equipment to sense temperature. It can be effected by the temperature of the electronics cabinet that is monitoring it. If you open the door on a cold day, and then take a reading you may get a slightly different read.

    Depending on how you are calibrating your thermometer there can be an array of things that can effect it. Night time, or day time. Humidity. Altitude.

    From what I have seen of modern science they are not up to the task, of guaranteeing one degree of accuracy at one site. Much less across the globe.

    I do believe though that the earth has been experiencing for hundreds of years by evidence, an ocean warming. But it will cycle. The caps will recede and then they will freeze. Eventually it will reverse and then reverse again.

    But the Global Climate never changes.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    In spite of how the data strongly leans towards my stance, I will not be happy until someone finds something wrong with my post.
    Which points in particular Darius? A good deal of your post was addressed already. And seriously you shouldn't muddy your own post with the conspiracy stuff (e.g. they keep the info from us) or meaningless anecdotal (they knew! There were sunspots in 1998!) if you want to have a serious conversation. I sometimes do the same thing and it's a bad practice in most forums because its darn hard to follow.

    There were other parts that didn't make sense at all such as: " GISS data more or less agrees with satellite data trends until 1978-9?" Well considering that's when the satellite data started that couldn't be the case. What did you mean to say?
    --
    Anyhow, here the satellite trend from 1979 to 2007 plotted on a map from the agency actually responsible for the RSS satellite data analysis (I posted the source earlier). It's color coded by change in degrees (C).

    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I work with heating and cooling equipment. I used to manufacture specialized heating equipment for industry.
    I'm happy for you. But why are you so presumptuous that people with a science background don't have practical experience? Like most meteorology, I spent several years in the field, testing, checking and maintaining stations among other duties. Had several courses specifically about instruments. Your "In real science you would get laughed out of the conversation," is pretty off the mark and unnecessary considering I was published in science....but anyhow.

    I don't do that kind of stuff anymore because in the middle of my Ph.d. my reserve duty called and pulled me into active duty Army (1991). Since I've worked a pretty typical Army officer career (logistics for another two years) but in an odd turn of fate was called to put my skills (analysis) to testing Army equipment a few years ago--which again had a lot to do with recording every manner of data--including temperatures which required some hands on.

    Again back to weather, most stations use liquid in glass types, or resistance ones--not so different from ones most of us are accustomed to, but in this case accurate and precision instruments that in reality are consistent to within 0.05C, but calibrated and certified to 0.25C. For weather instruments, precision, which is repeatability under the same conditions, is more important than accuracy. The reason is elevation and micro climatology of placement will effect the temperature anyhow--but not the absolute values of the changes.

    The other part which might take more explanation is the power of averaging that results in far more resolution than any single point is possible from. In the simplest terms if you take one sample of say a temperature within an error of say +2 or -2 C, but if you take a dozen samples you average out the errors and can reduce and improve that precision to a fraction of a degree. In weather stations, across a region and over days and years the same effect results in a error that's much more precise than any one point could be. To take another dramatic example, the same power of averaging over a large data set is used by geologist to reduce GPS errors from 10 meters, to mere millimeters--good enough to measure tectonic plate drift.

    Well and if anyone thinks ground data can get a bit confusing they really need to look at satellite derived stuff--which doesn't even start by recorded temperatures and is in constant adjustment to compensate for changing satellites, orbit drift, accumulating space dust on the lenses etc.

    And yes you should be concerned very much by 5 degrees C. The coldest ice age was only about 10 C colder--the differences should speak for themselves. It's not just highs and lows, but the depths of the extremes, and other changes to wind, snow/rain, soil moisture, and other factors that all compound to really screw stuff up. By some studies at +4C the US can no longer grow corn--imagine the turmoil that would cause.
    What did you calibrate it too?

    What was the humidity the day you calibrated it. What was the barometric pressure the day you calibrated it? What was the ambient temperature outside the day you calibrated it? Was it night time or day time?

    What season was it? What month was it? Were you in the northern or southern hemisphere or at the equator? Or at the poles?

    What elevation were you at?

    What was the distance to high power lines when you calibrated it?

    How many walls of steel were isolating you from the outside world when you calibrated it?

    How long did you stabilize the temperature in the room?

    Was the room cooling or warming during the calibration?

    What kind of radio silence, or walls of steel, were protecting you from radio output?

    What were the background radiation levels where you calibrated the instrument?

    What kind of lighting was used where you calibrated the instrument?

    Were the walls painted with lead paint or something else?

    Were there magnetic fields present from refrigeration equipment, air handlers or fans?

    Was there air movement in the room. Either by convection or apparatus.

    Was there heating or cooling systems in the area?

    What color were the walls in the area you calibrated the instrument?

    What color was the ceiling and floor?

    Was the temperature of the floor near that of the ceiling?

    What kind of breathing equipment did you use to isolate your breath from the area?

    Was there aluminum in the room?

    Were there electrical sources present?

    Believe it or not I am not being facetious at all. I just know that after working with heating equipment I have seen its flaws. And one degree Celsius is not within our grasp. Especially across the globe.

    And yet I do take my hat off to the real weathermen that know the climate does not change. And have kept amazing records.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •