Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 Next
Comments 63051 to 63100:
-
YOGI at 11:30 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
So what happens to all the IR back-radiation the hits the ocean surface ? -
Tom Curtis at 11:28 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn, if the entire Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet where to melt, that would raise sea level by approx. 66 meters. According to the site you linked to, surface water represents just 0.4% of total water in ice sheets, ice caps and glaciers. In other words, if all surface water was returned to the Ocean without replacement, it would raise sea levels by 280 mm. Conversely, a 6 mm fall in sea level only requires a 2.1% increase in total surface water, based on the information provided by your link. I fail to see how your link shows the 2010 La Nina could not have increased total surface water by 2%. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Addendum to my last post: * Earth with ~240 W/m^2 average insolation, 0.98 emissivity: ~ -18C temperature. -
YOGI at 11:24 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
scaddenp The Lunar Thermal Environment http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml Apollo soil temp` measurements at 35cm deep give an equatorial average of 255K with a diurnal variation of +/- 70K. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI * Flat 1m^2 object, with perfectly insulating back, pure blackbody absorption/emission: 120.5C * With 0.98 IR emissivity (as per surface of Earth): 122.5C * With 0.612 IR emissivity (as per Earth surface as seen through the atmosphere): 171.9C * Conductive blackbody plate, two sides radiating: 57C And: * Earth (spherical object with larger surface area, 0.3-0.35 albedo in visible, 0.612 emissivity in IR): ~15C --- Details matter. -
Tom Curtis at 11:16 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI @30, if you are going to think scientifically, you need to be able to follow the implications of assumptions made. Specifically, for the 2.7 K, the assumption was made of no specific heat, ie, that temperatures will move to radiative equilibrium with no delay. On the Moon, the night time temperature is around 90 K because of the specific heat of the Lunar rocks which prevents instantaneous changes in temperature. In crater floors in polar regions that drops to about 40 K because of heat transfer by conduction. However, if you want to use the Moon as an example, its mean temperature at the equator is 220 K, with its overall mean being lower. It has this low mean temperature despite a lower albedo than Earth's. Once again, the point is clear that the Earth's atmosphere reduces maximum daytime temperatures but increases the Global Mean Surface Temperature (even before you consider the greenhouse effect).
-
Camburn at 11:06 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
DB@56: Refer to Rob Painting at 29 of this thread. He posted the temperature data of the 0-700M volume. Scaddenp: Your comment made me smile......you are 100% correct @ 58. We are talking abotu change at the noise level. However, the thought that the La Nina changed the rate by much is shown to be not correct by the link that I posted showing the distribution of fresh water on our planet. -
scaddenp at 10:58 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Okay, 35-44K for minimum temperature because the moon is heated and does have thermal mass. Doesn't exactly change the argument. Average temp would be 217K. Your assumption is still wrong. -
YOGI at 10:45 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Moderator, why are you deleting my comments ?Response:[DB] Your two moderated comments were merely repetitions of unsupported assertions you made earlier, here. Supporting the earlier assertion with links to peer-reviewed studies appearing in reputable journals would be an example of adding to this discussion. Merely repeating yourself, such as you did, detracts from the discussion and begs intervention by the moderation staff.
-
JMurphy at 10:45 AM on 28 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
OK, JH, I'll try to 'send' something in over the next few days. -
YOGI at 10:44 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
#29 "the entire night side of the globe would be at approximately 2.7 K (the temperature of the cosmic background radiation)" Why are you throwing such wildly incorrect figures around ? Even the Moon`s night time does not get that cold. Even in the coldest place in our solar system, which is in craters of the S pole of the Moon it does not get that cold. -
Tom Curtis at 10:29 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI @27, the mean global surface temperature is 288 degrees K, corresponding to a black body radiation of 390 W/m^2. The temperature required to match the Sun's 1368 W/m^2 TSI at noon, with the sun vertically overhead, and ignoring albedo and assuming zero specific heat would be 394 degrees K. However, the sun is not always vertically overhead everywhere. So if we ignore albedo and specific heat, the temperature everywhere else on Earth would be less than the point where the Sun is vertically overhead. Indeed, ignoring albedo and specific heat, the entire night side of the globe would be at approximately 2.7 K (the temperature of the cosmic background radiation) Any location within approx 2000 Km of the dawn or dusk but in full daylight would have a temperature less than 288 K. Most importantly, even if we assume all areas in full daylight are at 394 K, while all night areas are at 3 K, the Global Mean Surface Temperature would be 198.5 K. That is 90 degrees K less than the current GMST, and over 50 K less than the GMST of the ideal black body with perfect conduction which is used in simplified calculations of the Earth's effective temperature for radiative equilibrium. In other words, while the atmosphere (and ocean, and thermal capacity of rocks and soil) clearly do mitigate the peaks in daylight temperature, in doing so it also minimizes the minimums in night time temperatures. What is more, the overall effect is to increase the Global Mean Surface Temperature. So your assumption is wrong. -
barry1487 at 09:56 AM on 28 February 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
Dennis @ 1, there is a link to what you suggest in the body of the article. http://www.skepticalscience.com/peer-reviewed-response-to-McLean-El-Nino-paper.html And more generally, try here. elsa @ 7, Maclean et al selected the data upon which the peer-reviewed criticism of their paper relies. -
scaddenp at 09:55 AM on 28 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
" Non repeatability (if that's a word)" This is an old one. By same logic, most geological theory is unscientific and this one is also leveled at evolutionary biology. However, nature and man deliver different forcings all the time and models, based on first-principle physics, manage to predict how climate will behave (which is not to be confused with weather forecasting). -
dana1981 at 09:53 AM on 28 February 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
barry - yes, corrected, thanks. elsa - please refrain from making unsupported accusations about climate scientists. -
Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
elsa - You continue to (incorrectly) assign all of climate science on forcings to CO2, then claim to have 'falsified' that science. Again, and I stress again, I suggest you read the CO2 is not the only driver of climate thread. You are building a strawman, engaging in the Fallacy of the single cause. In addition, I would point you at Lean and Rind 2008, where they explore this very question - solar, volcanic, ENSO, and anthropogenic forcings and their attributions to temperature change. Current warming would simply not be occurring without the anthropogenic influence. As to repeatability - we can repeat all of the related science. Spectroscopy of various gases, sampling of atmospheric contents, satellite observations of spectral changes in IR to space, atmospheric water content, oceanic heat content, isotopic attribution of CO2, O2 depletion, and all of the various fingerprints of warming - ongoing changes, currently measurable, observable data, which support the science. Your continued rejection of the data represents (IMO) nothing more than denial - repeatedly making unsupportable assertions while (essentially) sticking your fingers in your ears regarding the science. And all that, while presenting zero evidence (references would be nice) for any alternative hypotheses. -
scaddenp at 09:48 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Well Camburn, I thought we were talking about change at the noise level. -
barry1487 at 09:43 AM on 28 February 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
"He is just one of three lead authors on the Heartland Insitute's NIPCC report"
Did you mean to say that Carter is one of just three lead authors? -
muoncounter at 09:40 AM on 28 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
elsa#80: "In its crudest form..." So? We are not here to discuss 'crudest forms.' It is clearly a part of the overall understanding of climate that aerosols can cause significant cooling. Hence your claim of falsification of a cherry-picked part of valid science is false. You need to stop coming up these silly, pedantic objections and move on to improving your own understanding the science. Otherwise, your just wasting everyone's time. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI - It would correspond to a uniform temperature of 17.4C; see the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The average temperature (~15C) of the Earth surface radiates a bit more effectively due to variations - given positive and negative variations, and the T^4 relationship for radiative power, any variations will increase the energy radiated. Please read the OP, including the reference to Selsis 2007 for airless bodies with slow rotation rates like the Moon or Mercury. This is very unlike the more quickly rotating Earth with oceans and atmosphere to distribute heat far more evenly. You are continuing to compare apples to, well, coconuts. I would strongly suggest that you read up a bit on IR absorption and the lapse rate, and how they together cause a much lower emission of IR energy to space than would occur if we did not have greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Postma's nonsense will, IMO, not be helpful to your understanding. -
elsa at 09:31 AM on 28 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
1. Non repeatability (if that's a word) We cannot rerun the climate. By this I mean that we cannot experiment with the climate. We cannot try what the temperature would be with a given CO2 concentration because (a) we cannot fix the concentration and (b) even if we could the other things that affect climate will have changed too. 2. Modification In its crudest form the AGW theory (and I grant you this is a simplification) postulates that with rising CO2 the climate will warm. In the period 40s to 70s this not only failed to happen but probably the temperature actually declined. The usual escape route for the AGW theory is to attribute this to aerosols. Thus the theory needs to be modified. In its crudest form it has been falsified. -
Tom Curtis at 09:22 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Matthew L @48: 1) Your assumption of rigid constraint of the Ocean on all sides is incorrect. The Ocean floor (except over continental shelves) is a thin layer that flexes with the addition of further mass to the Ocean. The effect is to slowly push magma from under the Ocean floor to under the Continental crusts, thereby pushing them up. With the reduction in steric sea level rise over the last few years, and the increase in sea level rise due to the melting of glaciers, ice sheets and ice caps, this will have been a more important effect over recent years. Unfortunately I am unable to quantify it for you, and it will explain only a small part of the reduced rate of increase of sea level. 2) There has been a distinct decrease in steric sea level rise over recent years. That is due in large part to the deep solar minimum over the period 2008 - 2011. In fact, from the 2001-2002 peak, TSI has declined by about 0.25 W/m^2 averaged over the Earth's surface, or about a quarter of the average Top Of Atmosphere energy imbalance over the last few decades. Evidence suggests a further 0.25 W/m^2 reduction from other sources since about 2004 with possible reasons including the impact of aerosols from industrial expansion in China and India, possible slight changes in TOA energy balance due to the effects of ENSO, or even a very slightly enhanced solar effect due to Solar specific feedbacks. SFAIK, the exact balance of reasons is still unknown, and nor is it known that all possible candidates are even being discussed. 3) Finally, the very large dip in sea levels from 2010 - 2012 is attributed to increased land storage of water due to the very wet 2010-2011. According to the IPCC, 100 Gigatonnes of water will result in 0.28 mm of sea level rise. The dip is just over 5 mm at its deepest, and therefore represents just over 2,000 Gt of water stored on the land surface. -
skywatcher at 09:22 AM on 28 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
Based in Australia. I'll regularly check up on: RealClimate Open Mind Neven's Arctic blog Deep Climate (BTW, an interesting new post on how GMU have just released their very tardy and weak fndings on the Wegman scandal, and a hypothesis that they did so under the cover of the Heartland fiasco - "good day for bad news"?) I might also pass by Deltoid, Science of Doom, Rabett Run and keep an eye out for new videos from ClimateCrocks and potholer54 (Peter Hadfield) - both often superb video debunkings. -
neil at 09:14 AM on 28 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
@ Rob 51 I did not say the IPCC failed to consider carbon-climate models. I said the fully-coupled models were predominantly 'physical' models only, with no carbon cycle which is true. For example, this list gives the 23 AO GCMs used in CMIP3 / AR4. I also said in my previous post that some models (mainly intermediate complexity models, not full AO GCMs) like UVic, Bern and Climber etc did have carbon cycles. This is exactly what your link above shows (11 models, from C4MIP), so we agree here. I fully agree about uncertainties in the land-carbon storage etc of the models; but for the C4MIP model configurations (as listed your IPCC table), the carbon-climate response (thus warming from past emissions) is basically constant in time on scales from hundreds to thousands of years (as shown in Mathews et al. 2009), which is the point that I have been making all along. Again, for the umpteenth time, I give you that there is an 'aerosol' based warming in the pipeline, but not one from the carbon cycle, based on the C4MIP/AR4 generation of carbon-climate models. About the ocean heat ; yes there are many terms in the heat budget. I never said heat only travels downwards, I was saying the net of all these terms is a downward heat flux. If you do not agree that there is a net downward heat flux in the ocean under global warming, I just don't know what to say. In fact, I think we agree on almost everything, I was just trying to politely point out that the C4MIP models, with constant aerosols, show no 'warming in the pipleline' for past emissions on medium to long timescales, as documented amply in the literature. I feel that more than anything I've been attacked for this, rather than engaged, so at this point I'm going to withdraw from SKS. -
JP40 at 09:06 AM on 28 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
Building a giant server bank on the moon, or even a self-sufficient colony, isn't future technology. We had the technology to go there 40 years ago. It is only a matter of someone with enough money and power deciding not to be greedy, which ,as you observed, isn't likely. However, if anyone reading this blog happens to be a political leader of a large country or a billionaire, I beg you to invest in our future. -
YOGI at 09:03 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
KR The daylight figure for the Moon is the same as near Earth space maximum temp` at 121 degC, while the Lunar night figure is affected by warmth from the Lunar surface so is higher at the equator and lowest at the poles. The maximum temp is just a direct sunshine figure that you can take on the Moon or in near Earth space, so it`s apples and oranges. What temperature does 396 W/m^2 correspond to ? -
Riccardo at 08:45 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI "With an albedo of 0.12, we actually receive more IR than visible from the Moon." Could you please elaborate a bit? I'm really missing the logic. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI - The average temperature on Earth is ~288K. The average temperature on the Moon is ~218K. Averages reflect the total incoming energy and radiative effects, not peak or nadir temperatures. Note the difference between the averages? The amount of energy radiated from the top of our atmosphere is ~240 W/m^2, corresponding to a temperature of ~255K for a blackbody. This is due to the greenhouse effect, to greenhouse gases radiating from the top of the atmosphere, and to the atmospheric lapse rate which requires a much warmer surface (radiating ~396 W/m^2) to radiate the incoming solar energy back to space at TOA. Rosco was completely incorrect - Postma's work is nonsense. I suggest you do some more reading. -
YOGI at 08:36 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Sphaerica "..the surface of the moon reflects a large amount of the light (as proven by how bright it is when viewed from the earth at night)" With an albedo of 0.12, we actually receive more IR than visible from the Moon. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:32 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Yogi, Please forgive me if I don't take anything you say at all seriously. -
YOGI at 08:19 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Rosco is correct (roughly). The maximum temperature measured in near Earth space is 121°C, that is what is being measured on the Moon, not the Moon`s actual temperature, which is in it`s soil, not in the vacuum of space above the surface. Clearly, when maximum daytime temp is measured on Earth in direct sunshine, the atmosphere is impeding warming, not amplifying it. -
ubrew12 at 08:03 AM on 28 February 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
Citizens invest money and labor into their economy. They do this selfishly, as they expect a positive return on their investment. They follow an investment philosophy, in hopes of maximizing that return. Thus, the state of the economy is a referendum on that economic philosophy. If the global economy is in a shambles, its a simple and blunt verdict on the economic philosophy that dominated the previous 10-30 years. As it turns out, that economic philosophy is the 'free market, supply-side, deregulation' philosophy. In America, for example, income taxes have never been lower, the wealthiest 1% have gone from owning 20% of the country in 1979, to 40% of it now, and union membership has dropped by a factor of three. Reaganomics, Globalization, 'end of welfare as we know it', finance sector deregulation, Bush tax cuts, Greenspan low interest rates, 'irrational exhuberance', 'financial innovaton', largest ever housing and derivatives bubbles: all point to a country on a 'free market' deregulation binge (matched, to a lesser extent, by the rest of the world). So, by this economic philosophy, we invested in our future. How did that investment turn out? Behold: the greatest recession since the Great Depression, with likely worse on the way, and led by a meltdown in the most 'free market' sector of the economy, the finance sector. So, when a 'free market' think-tank like Heartland Institute wants to propagandize our children into doubting the work of scientists, the irony is too rich. These are primarily economic thinkers, whose economic philosophy has just led to the greatest economic meltdown in 80 years, and we're supposed to trust them on climate? Personally, I don't think even Lewis Carroll could have imagined this situation. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:57 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
It's actually a nice, convoluted little bait and switch they pull, and what's really, really, really funny about it is they have to violate the 1st law of thermodynamics for it all to work... while all the time screeching that GHG theory violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You see, pressure is determined by density is determined by gravity, which is determined by distance from the center of the earth, so closer to the surface the pressure is higher. Who can argue with that? And any high school chemistry student learned that for an (ideal) gas, PV=nRT. So... temperature is proportional to pressure. So if the sun heats the planet to 255˚K with constant sunshine, then... clearly as the pressure gets greater nearer the surface, the temperature must rise above that! It's all so simple. Who needs that radiative greenhouse mumbo-jumbo anyway? -
dana1981 at 07:43 AM on 28 February 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
KR - if that's the case, I'd certainly agree! -
Camburn at 07:35 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
scaddenp: A La Nina or El Nino event is only noise in the rate of rise of Sea Level. Even if you considered last years La Nina to be wet, the water has long since gone back to the ocean. We know with certainty that Greenland has lost ice mass. As a percentage of total mass, the loss is very small but the result is still a loss of mass and an increase in volume of water in the ocean. This is a long term trend that is not changing. The rate of SLR has slowed down over the past 5 years. ARGO data, while short, shows a reduction in THC of the oceans in the 0-700M volume. As you can see from the following link, even a 10% increase in freshwater is not a significant amount when looking at all of earth's water. The Water CycleResponse:[DB] "ARGO data, while short, shows a reduction in THC of the oceans in the 0-700M volume."
Kindly provide a link that supports this assertion...
-
actually thoughtful at 07:14 AM on 28 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
In the them of being off topic - I have noticed two things about moderation that appear easy to fix: 1. Authors "moderating" their own posts 2. Moderator who wrote the original post have trouble staying as objective as possible. I recommend not having the original author moderate their own posts.Moderator Response: [JH] Like "beauty","objectivity" is in the eye of the beholder. PS - Not all SkS authors have volunteered to serve as Moderators. -
Alexandre at 07:07 AM on 28 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
Besides SkS, I regularly look at RealClimate Open Mind Science of Doom Nasa GISS and RoySpencer for monthly temp anomalies NSIDC for sea ice extent Ok, that's six. I only visit Nasa, RS and NSIDC about once a month. -
DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
dana1981 - Perhaps he doesn't consider his opinions re: climate change to be "research"? -
dana1981 at 07:06 AM on 28 February 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
Neven - Carter seems to have a very odd definition of "special interest organization":"He receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments."
Apparently political think tanks don't qualify? How convenient. -
Neven at 07:02 AM on 28 February 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
And don't forget that according to Carter's bio he "receives no research funding from special interest organisations". -
scaddenp at 06:49 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
"ENSO has no effect on the volume of water in the ocean" - yes it does. The recent removal of water to land for instance in the La Nina, affecting sea level. -
scaddenp at 06:23 AM on 28 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
YOGI - as SoD explains, the example is chosen because it is easy to calculate and shows how the insulation doesnt violate 1st Law. That is the point, no more. -
scaddenp at 06:10 AM on 28 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
My ones - "A few things ill considered", for the news/papers round up; Realclimate; Science of Doom; and Tamino. I also look at Blackboard and Roy Spenser as the more honest of the "skeptic" world so I dont get tunnel vision. -
Rob Painting at 05:59 AM on 28 February 2012The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
Muon - of course I'm jumping the gun, the length of the record, as discussed in that post, isn't long enough to to say definitively. But the error bars will reduce as the length of observations grows, that much is a gimme. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Nonsense, Dikran - your posts contain (ahem) significantly more content :) -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:54 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
KR, nice explanation; the difference in clarity between your answer and mine is why I tend to keep to statistical issues! ;o) -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
The "gravitational heating" meme is one I've seen over and over. I would suggest it as a topic for a SkS thread, except that it's so ridiculous I feel it a waste of time. Gravitational collapse can release energy - once per collapse. Once that happens, the energy is free to radiate away as per the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and it's quite clear that over the 4.5 billion years of Earth's existence all of the excess energy from the atmospheric collapse would be long gone. But such collapse cannot provide a continuing flow of energy. -
Matthew L at 05:53 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Muoncounter: "But I take issue with the prior comparison to warming a test tube, resulting in all vertical expansion. Continental shelves do not have vertical sides; the areal inundation of just a few meters of sea level rise is very large." Point taken, but we are talking about a rise of just a few millimetres not metres. I doubt the reduction in the rising trend has anything to do with "inundation" of river deltas at these tiny levels. It is much more likely to do with the temperature of the oceans not rising as fast. -
Matthew L at 05:46 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Sphaerica: I'm not at all certain of myself here, but my initial point was that if you add enough energy to a bucket of water to raise it by 1 degree, will that expand as much as if you added that same amount of energy to a pool of water? Hmmm... not sure if that is the right question! In the case of the ocean the bucket (upper levels) and pool (lower levels) have the same surface area. So the better question might be "if you add enough energy to a bucket of water to raise it by 1 degree, will that expand as much as if you added that same amount of energy to a bucket of water that is deeper?" To which my answer would be "Yes" (as far as I understand it) even though the temperature of the water in the bucket rises less. "The question was, given that level of pressure, would an increase in temperature result in an equivalent or lesser increase in volume compared to a liquid at a lower pressure." Water at a higher temperature (up to 45c) is even less compressible so the effect of high pressures really has no significant effect on what happens when water is warmed slightly in the deep oceans. All of this may be moot, however... your graph of decreasing sea level trend does not seem to take into account other "noise" factors, such as the effects of ENSO events. Are you certain that the decreasing trend you see is real? This data set has the intra-annual seasonal effects removed and my 12m moving average removes monthly noise. However it does include the effect of any ENSO events. Because the analysis is done over 5 years any ENSO "spikes" or "dips" are somewhat delayed. For instance the El-Nino in 1998 is reflected in an up-tick in the graph in 2003 (this was confirmed to me by the University of Colorado). I am certain the downward trend is real but uncertain as to its cause. The most likely explanation would appear to be a reduction in the rate of rise in heat content of the oceans. This seems to verify the graphs of ocean heat content that show a levelling off in the most recent period. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:34 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Cheers Sphaerica. I noticed that Postmas paper lapsed into all the lapse rate nonsense. The idea that there is gravitational heating seems like nonsense to me. If gravitational heating were true, then it should be heating the surface even if the sun were to stop shining. My intuition here would be that it wouldn't, the Earth would cool and the atmosphere with it, until it eventually condensed out as ice on the surface and we would have no atmosphere at all. It is only the heat we recieve from the sun that holds the atmopshere up by providing the thermal energy that causes it to have pressure due to the movement of the molecules. It seems to me that Postma has got it completely the wrong way round.
Prev 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 Next
