skierinvermont

2 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

When the Earth's OLR is around 239 W/m2 explain to me how .87 w/m2 is significant? especially if the oceans are absorbing most of it? 

 

 

The oceans are absorbing the vast majority of it. If the atmosphere was forced to absorb .87W/m2, the atmosphere would be warming at like 10C per year (of course once it warmed up a couple degrees C the energy imbalance would disappear). 

5 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

You can't say this unless you invoke a climate model. Maybe you trust models, I don't. 

My statement has absolutely nothing to do with climate models. The warming of the whole earth system is based on data. Nothing else with a radiative effect in our atmosphere has changed to cause such an imbalance, except CO2. Water vapor has increased, but this cannot be the cause of such a large and persistent change or else we would be stuck in an infinite warming trend.

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Where do you get "right wing" lies from?  I am not a right winger by no means. I am a realist on the climate system and its inherent uncertainties and complexities. It is NOT all figured out like many seem to think. Even the Earth's heat imbalance,  .87 W/m2?  We have a very hard time measuring with any certainty the solar constant and other heat flows. This could easily be in error. The Ocean heat uptake is not a problem at all.  If you do the math it shows that the increase in OHC equals a whooping .04C!   That means that the oceans can continue to take up heat and stabilize the climate system.  Anyway I could go on here but I won't.  

 

Your points are superficial at best. The point demonstrated by ohc data isn’t that the oceans are getting hot and running out of their ability to absorb more heat. The oceans are vast and have substantially slowed the rate of atmospheric warming and will continue to do so. The point of ohc measurements is that they prove the earths energy imbalance of .87w/m2. You questioned the validity of the .87w/m2 earlier in your post, well the ohc data is one of the main independent lines of proof. For the oceans to warm by that much the earth must have a large and persistent energy imbalance. The only plausible cause of such an imbalance with any evidence is CO2.

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

On the issue of oceans, here’s a link to a paper that was published earlier this year:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00376-020-9283-7.pdf

 

Thanks Don. It's been educational to witness the tremendous rise in OHC and surface temperatures the last 15 years we've been following this. I can't remember if you were around when I first started following the issue on this forum (easternuswx back then) 13 years ago in college. In my arrogance and incomplete understanding of the science I did not believe that climate sensitivity was as high as it is. I didn't understand the multiple lines of evidence for climate sensitivity and I was skeptical of the atmospheric and oceanic temperature datasets. As I understood the science and data sources better, my thinking changed, but the nail in the coffin has been the massive rise in OHC and surface temperatures the last 15 years. Not that 15 years proves anything on its own, but when combined with the previous 100 years of warming and with the multiple lines of evidence for CO2s radiative forcing and for climate sensitivity, I quickly realized how mistaken and incomplete my understanding was. Back then the 'climate skeptics' universally predicted imminent cooling or at worst a leveling off. A more complete understanding of the science even 15 years ago would have proved them (and me) wrong, but the last 15 years have been a sort of real world test for those of us that had less than perfect understandings.

I'm not proud of my youthful mistakes, but I can say even when I was at my most mistaken and ignorant I never pretended that climate accords are too punitive against the U.S. when they allow higher per capita emissions in the U.S. than any other country. Or that the relatively low number of birds killed by windmills negate the numerous benefits. Or that wind power is too expensive when it's actually cheaper (even back then it was starting to get close in price).

It seems that the 'skeptics' have moved on from making any actual useful predictions of their own, since they got burned the first time, and have moved even further until the realm of magical thinking.

7 hours ago, rclab said:

Apparently climate change can be added to the topics that should be avoided if a civil discussion is desired. All of us are entitled to our opinions and a respectful listening. I find the ease of generic labeling based on an opinion troubling. If all voices cannot be heard respectfully than we are already living in Mr. Simons World. “Hello darkness my old friend”. As always ....

Opinions are one thing. Repeating right wing lies that have been disproved a thousand times over are entirely another. Any remotely genuine engagement on the topic would be entirely a different matter and deserve a more engaged response. Anybody with an ounce of respect for the truth, science, human or environmental health wouldn't be repeating disproved falsehoods ripped straight from right wing disinformation sources. This isn’t some mr Rogers fairy land where everyone gets to have an opinion just because they were born. The truth and a rigorous disciplined pursuit of it is what counts.

One group is presenting facts and peer reviewed science. The only response is 'it's the oceans!!!' and a bunch of other lies. There is no genuine search for the truth. There is no discussion to be had with such an individual.

10 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I will be reporting you to the MODs. This is uncalled for. 

You tell lies, I point out your lying and/or willful ignorance, you report me. Good luck. You don’t like being called a liar? Have you tried not spreading lies?

I don't have respect for lies and disingenuous behavior. Bless the people here who are willing to try and educate you despite this.

6 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

 

 

I do appreciate the passion many of you bring to make for a better planet. I agree with this. We shouldn't be polluting the atmosphere. We need to go to renewables at some point BUT it can't be forced. I would love to see solar panels on all buildings, not solar farms that take up a lot of land. I would like to see bird friendly wind turbines if that is possible.  I would not like to see energy prices rise so much that poor people resort to deforestation and other environmental calamities that comes with poverty for basic survival. I would like to see climate accords that phase out fossil fuel use for ALL countries. What is the point if some countries are allowed to pollute?  That is ridiculous. It also needs to be phased in slowly as technology advances. Anyway, it is my nature as a scientist to question everything.  

 

 

'birds in turbines' is mostly winger nonsense given 100x more birds die from feral cats, communication towers, power lines, and household windows.

'but it can't be forced' is also winger nonsense given wind is cheaper than coal and has been largely adopted on economic grounds. Modest tax subsidies can speed the process with little to no impact on poor people (and much benefit in terms of a less polluted environment and more stable climate).

'all countries' is more winger bullshit since the U.S. uses far more CO2 per-capita than almost any country in the world. climate accords should allocate an equal amount of CO2 per person in every country. Just because the U.S. has been the worse offender historically doesn't mean it should get to keep being the worst.

'question everything as a scientist' lol - we see right through you - just another phony winger buying into right wing lies

ultimately you will lose this debate and the actions and words of people like you will be looked back upon with shame, because your side is founded on lies and the truth will ultimately win

I have no patience for people spreading lies. Shame on you.

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I will agree to disagree. It is not even close to being settled. We don't know enough about natural climatic forcings. You can't hide behind literature or IPCC. The literature or peer reviewed papers do not cover anything else because they use models to determine whether the forcing is natural or not. When you have an incomplete knowledge of natural forcings and cycles how can you make models that cover this?   There is nothing convincing (except for models) that points to CO2 as the main driver of climate. We are in a warming trend now. It is pretty small. 1-2C/century if it continues. That is pretty small considering the rapid changes that occured during the glacial-interglacial cycles, younger dryas and the 8.2 ky cooling event. These were drastic changes. What we are seeing now is benign warming. Of course coastal communities will continue to see sea level rise so living on the coast is a problem. But for most of us, any warming is beneficial.  Once the oceans go back to a cooling cycle we will see a drop in temperature. 

'oceans go back to a cooling cycle' - wow the wonder of magical thinking. How are the oceans going to cool the planet when they are full of more heat than any time in thousands of years.

It's simple. There is a massive persistent energy imbalance of the whole planet. There is no possible mechanism by which the oceans could cause such a whole-system imbalance where the atmosphere and oceans - everything - are warming continuously and with a very large magnitude.

12 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Yep, and people still argue about processed food and high fructose corn syrup, even though the twin pandemics of diabetes and obesity makes it all too clear.  The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

I mean most sane people don't really argue that corn syrup isn't bad for you, the argument I've seen is that it's no worse than sugar which is correct (there's little evidence corn syrup is any worse than sugar other than the fact that it's cheaper and more widely used in the food industry).

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

The answer is more than just that.  Human land use is also to blame- 1) is too much animal farming 2) human overpopulation creating dense population centers 3) GHG of course.  It's all interrelated actually.

 

In terms of global warming, animal farming and dense population centers have a negligible effect outside of their GHG effect (cow farts, cars in cities etc.). Outside the GHG effect of animal farms (cow farts = methane, and clear cutting = CO2), animal farms probably cause cooling by creating a more reflective land surface than a forest. Of course the GHG effect of the cow farts and clear cutting outweigh that.

Just now, AppsRunner said:

Holding firm on the Warnings/Advisories. Seems like most accums for the metro are going to come afternoon into overnight tomorrow. Still think a good snow is in store for the metro, but it's going to be borderline.

Looks like the GFS just backed off a little. very borderline now. 

On 9/6/2020 at 12:05 PM, blizzard1024 said:

 

Yes the climate is warming. But how can you rule out that natural forces such an ENSO (stronger El Ninos since the late 1970s) doesn't play a big role?  Yes CO2 has some role but paleorecords from the Pleistoscene suggest it is minor.   The pliocene was a warmer epoch because the Atlantic and Pacific oceans were not seperate. The Isthmus of Panama was open. Once this closed around 2.6 million years ago we went into glacial-interglacial cycles because of the development of the AOMC. This led to more moisture reaching high latitudes and much more snowfall which in turn began the glaication process. The pliocene is a different epoch completely. We didn't have the moisture and snowcover/ice age cycles. This really suggests ocean currents are a major driver of the climate system. Not CO2. 

ENSO doesn't cause a planetary energy imbalance. In fact, by reduced ocean mixing concentrating heat at the oceans surface, more heat is radiated to space and the deep oceans cool. In contrast, we have observed an exceptionally large increase in the earth's oceanic heat content. The oceans have warmed so much that they have expanded significantly and are the primary cause of sea level rise for the last century. It's very difficult to comprehend the amount of heat the oceans have absorbed over the last 100+ years in order to expand that much (and also confirmed by deep sea buoys over more recent decades). You really should make an effort to learn about the amount of heat that the oceans have absorbed and how the only possible explanation is that the earth is stuck in a large radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. There are only a few plausible explanations for such an imbalance: 1) large changes in cloud cover 2) large land use changes making the earth less reflective (human caused land changes have tended to make the earth more reflective) 3) changes in greenhouse gas concentrations

The obvious answer is #3 given the observed increase in CO2 and its testable radiative properties

Denver could see it's earliest sub-30 reading ever 4 days after seeing it's latest 100+ ever. While I'd generally expect record cold to decrease with climate change, the wild weather swings are predicted to increase with a slowing jet.

NWS point and click says 6-12 for me, but the WWA says 2-6. I'm a few hundred feet higher than most of the metro's WWA area and on the western edge, so I'm thinking 3-7 for me. Unreal. Latest Euro upped the qpf a bit but most of that was rain, so predicted snowfall held steady.

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Come on people. It is the poor forest management practices in Ca and the west. Suppressing fires for many many decades is now reached a breaking point. People also have been encroaching on the forests with developments vs 50 years ago. There are more people in harms way now. Anyone who says climate change is causing this is uninformed.   This is the time of year when the hottest and driest conditions occur in CA. The jet stream begins to amplify over the Gulf of Alaska in late summer climatologically. This leads to more ridging in the west and Santa Ana winds. A dry heat. Its fire season now. If you have that plus a LOT of fuel...its gonna be bad. How does climate change cause this? You have got to be kidding thinking this is causing the fires. 

Average temperatures in California have increased and average precipitation has decreased.

7 minutes ago, BillT said:

and there went the civility, i have not in any way denied the greenhouse effect......it clearly makes the earths atmosphere warmer than it would be by slowing the movement of the heat in our system.......,with no atmosphere the earths temperature would have huge swings daily from super hot during the day to bitterly cold every night.

Pointing out contradictions is not uncivil. You’ve said that the molecules scatter random directions and implies this means that they can’t warm the earth. But this is exactly how the greenhouse effect for other gases works, which now you say keep our atmosphere warmer than it would be. That’s a contradiction. Those molecules also scatter in random directions and yet keep the earths atmosphere warmer than it would be

1 minute ago, BillT said:

so you are claiming your blanket stays warm even after you get up it doesnt return to room temperature soon after you get out of bed??????

No of course not. The co2 and the sun aren’t going anywhere

1 hour ago, BillT said:

the primary GHG  on earth is water vapor.......and Venus is much closer to the sun, Mars has a much higher %age of co2 in its atmosphere than earth and is much colder.

Mars is cold because the atmosphere is thin 1% of earths and contains almost no water vapor

2 minutes ago, BillT said:

i already have arrived at the correct conclusion = NO insulator ever traps any heat and cant make the total heat in any system increase, and the greenhouse effect is an insulating effect.

My blanket takes issue with your blanket statement that no insulator ever traps heat. The air inside my blanket is toasty.

as I said nobody ever said the total heat increase. By trapping more heat on earth less heat escapes to stratosphere and space

1 minute ago, BillT said:

the primary GHG  on earth is water vapor.......and Venus is much closer to the sun, Mars has a much higher %age of co2 in its atmosphere than earth and is much colder.

See you’ve changed tactics. First you denied the greenhouse effect entirely. Now you deny that more ghgs will increase the effect. Which is it?

1 minute ago, BillT said:

ty but you refuse to accept i did this research long ago, these posts are not based on recent study, i have done no additional research in the last 24 hours or even in years when it comes to what an insulator does and doesnt do.

I’m sure you did. What I appreciate is that you are thinking about it and I am sure that if you think and engage enough you are more likely to arrive at the correct conclusion.

1 minute ago, BillT said:

the co2 is similar to a blanket that is over 80% holes and doesnt slow any heat movement.....in most of the area of it.....try wearing a coat that only covers less than 20% of your upper body and tell me how warm you feel in zero degree weather?

It’s full of holes but also miles thick. Which is why the surface of the earth isn’t freezing cold like other similar planets. Planets with more ghgs are even hotter.

Bill, I will say I appreciate the more effort you e put into reading and responding. Your short one line posts and then ignoring the responses when people try to help you understand are extremely frustrating, so I apologize if my post was too personal.

5 minutes ago, BillT said:

it doesnt release it with any directional push it simply releases it........at least you seem to accept it does NOT trap any heat that is progress....you are warmer under the blanket because it slows the heat being lost from your body and get warm right next to your skin.....and it does NOT increase the overall total heat in the room, the blanket does NOT make the total heat in the room any more in any way.....

Even if the blanket were not touching me the air gets warmer inside the blanket because the heat loss is slowed. CO2 is very similar to a blanket being thrown over the earth. Do you deny that the air inside the blanket gets warmer even though the molecules of the blanket scatter heat in random directions? This random scattering of heat can all be simulated by computer and it shows warming in the lower layers.

the room doesn’t get warmer because the room is outer space and the stratosphere in this example. They actually cool as does the room temporarily because less heat is escaping until the earth or air inside the blanket get so hot they start emitting enough heat that the energy flows balance again

When a blanket absorbs radiation from your body it doesn’t re-emit the radiation in any particular direction. The first layer of molecules absorb radiation and then scatters it in all directions. And yet the blanket warms you. This is because even though it is scattered in all directions which slows the dissipation of the heat relative to the radiation having no obstacle at all. 
 

your greenhouse example is wrong too. 
the greenhouse obviously doesn’t get hotter every day but it is still hotter than if there were no greenhouse or a weaker one. The earth is like a really big greenhouse that just takes a really time to warm up. If you ever had a greenhouse and put a deep swimming pool of cold water in it, it would take the greenhouse several days to warm up fully, especially near the surface of the water.

the real problem with the greenhouse analogy is that glass greenhouses don’t work by insulating. They work by preventing the air from escaping. The glass has very little insulating effect. 
 

a very clear plastic greenhouse would probably be hotter than a glass one