Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Explaining a glaring contradiction

And why is it that Mars, with a much higher amount of CO2 per cubic metre of atmosphere, is so bloody cold?
Dec 10, 2012 at 6:50 PM RKS

Could the fact it's further from the sun have something to do with it?

Dec 10, 2012 at 7:19 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

BB - Where are you by the way? La Paz? Addis Abeba?

Dec 10, 2012 at 7:50 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

RKS - Dec 10, 2012 at 6:50 PM

After seeing a chart posted by Harold W, I did a bit of work of my own.
The link below should take you to a chart that shows the present (up to Oct 2012) trends for 10, 15 and 30 years.

http://i49.tinypic.com/b3oifn.jpg

The 10 year trend is slightly negative at -0.04 DegC/Decade
The 15 year trend is slightly positive at +0.04 DegC/Decade
The 30 year trend is significantly positive +0.16 Deg/C Decade, however the rate of warming has reduced by approx 25% from the high of +0.20 DegC/Decade in Dec 2003.

Also of note is that the last time the 10 year trend was at this level was 1979 and the 15 year trend was last at its present level in 1980.

Whilst the shorter 10 and 15 year trends will be more volatile than the longer WMO 30 year trend, they are influential. Until the shorter trends break up through the longer trend the 30 year trend can only reduce further.

The numbers above can be checked using the “Least squares trend line; slope” facility at wood for trees.

Eg – 10 year trend:-

http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut4gl/last:120/trend

I think they are correct but always appreciate any checks

Dec 10, 2012 at 7:55 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

you seem to think the ocean is not part of the globe in 'global' warming

You still havent taken in/responded to the material I presented in my last post. It does not consider the ocean to not be a part of the globe. You do that, and then we'll talk.

----

Let me state the missing heat problem. According to the enhanced greenhouse theory, the surface must warm in order to reach radiative equillibrium given the increased energy influx that has occurred from the increase in non-removable greenhouses gases (such as CO2). It can be argued that such warming may be postponed until such time when the (presently) warmed ocean surface water sinks and hides in the bottom, and resurfaces later. If that is indeed the case, then such mechanisms must have taken place previously as well. In which case, a fraction of the warming observed during the latter half of the 20th century could certainly have been due to such a mechanism. In which case, the IPCC's atttribution of 'most' of that warming to concurrent anthropogenic factors would be wrong

In the event that the earth system doesn't follow such delayed heat sinking and resurfacing and responds more immediately, then the lack of warming for 16 years, though it doesn't prove or disprove any theory, is definetely troublesome for such an explanation.

Mind you, a categorical statement regarding such ad-hoc theories cooked up by people such as Cook *cannot* be made given the paucity of data. But still, in case the oceans swallowed all that heat but never gave it up at a later data, then the theory of anthropogenic warming would be in real trouble.

If warming did indeed resume, say tomorrow, then we know sadly enough, that it would be blamed on 'the CO2'. Would that be the CO2 of tomorrow, or would that be the heat that is being hidden today? Even if we do figure that one out, it would still be problematic. How? It would suggest, for instance, that the heat that went into the oceans in the 1940s-1970s resurfaced in the eighties and nineties. Which would mean that the globe was warming while it was cooling (!). In case the ocean buoys (Argo) and other sensors do not see any hidden heat coming up but surface temperatures still go up, that would be back to square one too, because, that would mean that the heat of the late 90s and the 00s just completely disappeared.

The longer the pause gets, the more problematic it is for this stupid AGW theory. The situation simply suggests, and would suggest it even more strongly, that a story was spun together without taking into account all relevant factors being considered.

Dec 10, 2012 at 8:33 PM | Registered Commentershub

Whilst the shorter 10 and 15 year trends will be more volatile than the longer WMO 30 year trend, they are influential. Until the shorter trends break up through the longer trend the 30 year trend can only reduce further.

The numbers above can be checked using the “Least squares trend line; slope” facility at wood for trees.

Eg – 10 year trend:-

http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut4gl/last:120/trend

I think they are correct but always appreciate any checks

Dec 10, 2012 at 7:55 PM | Green Sand>>>>>

Thanks for the info.

Interesting things trends, they can be cherry picked to mean almost anything, and the 15 year trend includes the 1998 El Nino blip.

The fact remains that out of the past 72 years warming has occurred for just 22 years, and when we see trends of +/- 0.04 degC/decade we are in effect talking about flatlining.

Dec 10, 2012 at 8:36 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

Just out of interest, how does hot surface water sink to the bottom of the ocean for any period, let alone the lengthy periods hypothesized.

Is there a laboratory experiment to demonstrate this effect?

Dec 10, 2012 at 8:42 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

And why is it that Mars, with a much higher amount of CO2 per cubic metre of atmosphere, is so bloody cold?
Dec 10, 2012 at 6:50 PM RKS
Could the fact it's further from the sun have something to do with it?

Dec 10, 2012 at 7:19 PM | Martin A>>>>>

We could compare relative CO2 density and relative insolation and see how that stacks up, but CO2 density on Mars is massively greater than that on Earth even though the Mars atmosphere is thinner.

Dec 10, 2012 at 8:46 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

Shub, it is well accepted that increased CO₂ causes an energy imbalance; as a result the planet warms. Whether or not the warming can easily be measured does not change the basic equation. I can't measure day-to-day changes such as hair growth or the hardening of my arteries or many other characteristics, but I don't doubt that they occur.

Dec 10, 2012 at 9:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

RKS

Interesting things trends, they can be cherry picked to mean almost anything, and the 15 year trend includes the 1998 El Nino blip.

Slight disagreement with that statement, it is not possible to cherry pick the last 10 years, they are plain and simply “the last 10 years”. I might not have made it clear that the trends I quoted are “rolling month” trends, last month in, first month out. This way they are never “cherry picked”, they are simply the last period and as such give the best indication of how the overall trend is progressing.

I am trying to get a clear visual demonstration of what is happening in the here and now, I can plot any period 8, 12, 14, 20, 25 years all ending in the last months data. All that happens is the chart gets very confusing.

Reason for 30 years is it is the MO and AGW specified “climate” period, (the data is HadCRUT4, I should have stated that above) the 15 years because it is 50% of their spec period and gives an indication of which way the 30 year will go, as does the 10 year, which is also a check on the MO’s Decadal “DePreSys” Forecasts. Therefore people, especially the MO, cannot dismiss the 10 year trend.

Keep an eye on the 10 and 15 year trends they are your friends!

Dec 10, 2012 at 9:18 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

and just where is it warming BB? Argo suggests with about 50% confidence thqa it is not warming in the 0-2000m layer of the oceans. Thje ice caps are expanding. SST is not increasing. Any ideas? Please send to Trenberth and Mann.

Dec 10, 2012 at 10:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

ROFLMAO at BB

did you not see the graph that showed an infinitesimal shrinkage of the Arctic...you really are a strange person. Are you a person? Are you an attempt at creating a Turing machine? In which case, you fail quite badly. Maybe you were incapable of reading the words in that post.

This is what one commentator said - not Mann or Trenberth so feel free to ignore him/her, because you know that you only defer to these people rather than objective data::

"Barely any change from 2005. And the 2012 number is year-to-date of course … year isn’t over.

Year Mean Ice Area
1 1985 11523641
2 1995 11146502
3 2002 8788207
4 2003 10912937
5 2004 10663564
6 2005 10352763
7 2006 10229750
8 2007 9962932
9 2008 10460809
10 2009 10431044
11 2010 10198010
12 2011 9978963
13 2012 10443014"


Give me your scorn, BB... Your lack of intellect is a bad influence.

Dec 10, 2012 at 11:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

...I can't measure day-to-day changes ...

But, during similar short stretches of time of equal duration, say 1982 to 1998, the same change occurred and could be so confidently measured. How is that?

It is as though when your hair grows you can measure it but when it doesn't, you can't.

Which one is it? Can't measure it, or not growing?

Dec 10, 2012 at 11:25 PM | Registered Commentershub

...I can't measure day-to-day changes ...

that says everything you need to know. he does not possess a ruler and yet knows everything about global warming. If we get hijm to add "boom boom" to his posts then we could treat him properly.

Dec 10, 2012 at 11:32 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Well done Diogenes, while scientists have been obsessing about arctic ice loss in summer, you and your band of geniuses discover they are looking the wrong way! Its the winter when it is cold and the water freezes where the big story is! How you and your denier pals must chuckle at how silly the scientists are... Sensible sceptics here will keep a safe rhetorical distance from you I think.

Shub, "the same change occurred" is rather imprecise. I presume you mean the CO₂ level went up by a similar amount. But the starting conditions (101 characteristics of the climate) were different so why expect exactly the same outcome?

Dec 11, 2012 at 12:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

...is rather imprecise.

Dude, you haven't answered questions raised by my earlier posts. You do that and then we'll talk.

...denier pals ...

On second thought, let us not talk.

Dec 11, 2012 at 1:16 AM | Registered Commentershub

Keep an eye on the 10 and 15 year trends they are your friends!

Dec 10, 2012 at 9:18 PM | Green Sand>>>>>

Sorry for the confusion.

I was musing on how AGW alarmists cherry pick statistical trends. The ones you discussed were used sensibly and I pointed out that the 15 year trend was only positive due to the 1998 El Nino blip.

The WMO may yet regret using the 30 year trend to prove global warming.

Dec 11, 2012 at 2:34 AM | Registered CommenterRKS

It seems we've all been suckered into the troll's web again.

The remedy is tried and tested. If you don't want the thread to be disrupted by trolls then don't feed them by acknowledging them. And that applies to muggins me as well!

DNFTT

Dec 11, 2012 at 2:51 AM | Registered CommenterRKS

And why is it that Mars, with a much higher amount of CO2 per cubic metre of atmosphere, is so bloody cold?
Dec 10, 2012 at 6:50 PM RKS
Could the fact it's further from the sun have something to do with it?

Dec 10, 2012 at 7:19 PM | Martin A>>>>>

We could compare relative CO2 density and relative insolation and see how that stacks up, but CO2 density on Mars is massively greater than that on Earth even though the Mars atmosphere is thinner.
Dec 10, 2012 at 8:46 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

The point I was trying to make is just that since (from NASA data):


Perihelion (10^6 km):
Mars 206.62
Earth 147.09
Ratio (Mars/Earth)1.405

the watts per square metre of solar radiation arriving at Mars is about 1/2 the value arriving at the Earth (1.405*1.405 ~= 2), it is perhaps unnecessary to get into detailed discussion about atmospheric constitution to answer the question why it "is so bloody cold" on Mars.

I imagine that if the atmosphere of Mars were pure CO2 at 15psi it would still be "bloody cold" there.

Dec 11, 2012 at 9:04 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Diogenes
Join the gold star googling club. (courtsey of Dec 11, 2012 at 12:52 AM | BitBucket)

Dec 11, 2012 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

SandyS

I should have learned not to engage with the guy. He seems incapable of seeing that even if you look at the minima, the Antarctic, which is far larger than the Arctic, is not shrinking in terms of area. It is very hard for him to open his mind.

Dec 12, 2012 at 12:05 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Shrub, don't tell me which words I can use. If someone behaves like a true sceptic, I'll call him sceptic. If on the other hand someone just denies reality, I'll call him a denier. I gave the choice in my previous post: sensible sceptic or denier. Pick the one that fits. If, like the greek, you want to deny arctic ice loss, then you are no sceptic.

Diogenes, just look at the data from GRACE (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html); or deny it if that suits you. Check out Greenland GRACE data as well if you are so inclined...

Dec 12, 2012 at 1:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

This is probably one of the most dishonest characters I've come across.

Dec 12, 2012 at 1:53 AM | Registered Commentershub

This is probably one of the most dishonest characters I've come across.

Dec 12, 2012 at 1:53 AM | shub>>>>>

Yet another thread deliberately wrecked by the BB troll shub?

Dec 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM | Registered CommenterRKS

diogenes/shub/RKS

Have you considered just ignoring him?
His only purpose is to derail every thread he visits. He is not interested in discussing, debating or even arguing, only in disrupting. Just pretend he doesn't exist.

DNFTT

Dec 12, 2012 at 1:53 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

This is an important topic. Think of this: the flaws in the MBH paper/s were pointed out almost immediately after its publication (immediate, as in, ~3-4 years after their release). For years, there was no standard response. Today, I see Richard Betts telling a commenter that MBH is 'old'. No matter that the foundation for the rest of the stuff got built on that.

Tomorrow, or whenever the temperature takes an upturn, they'll blame it on CO2 without even batting an eyelid for the lost years. Disgusting.

So, in other words, the topic is important.

Dec 12, 2012 at 2:14 PM | Registered Commentershub