• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bend Over And Kiss Your Ass Goodbye, The Planet is Baking

calamity said:
Well, less cooling at night actually proves the greenhouse effect. That's not exactly a good thing.... :lol:
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, but the greenhouse effect is not in question.
What is in question is the climate sensitivity of the additional CO2, and the fact that it is behaving differently that the modelers predicted.
Here is what James Hansen wrote in 1995.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_ha09800r.pdf
We can safely predict that on the long run the effect of the diurnal damping on maximum temperatures will be small,
Click to expand...
So he expected the T-Max and the T-Min to be equal.
 
Mithrae said:
...in the continental United States (as a whole). As I have pointed out before, summer days have been getting hotter across both the Northern and Southern hemispheres as a whole. Only in autumn and only in the NH has Tmax has been declining on hemispheric or global scales; Tmin has been increasing about 2-2.5 times faster than Tmax.

Stone and Weaver, 2002
Click to expand...
While it is true that T-max has only been slightly declining in the US, China, and Greenland,
that does not change the fact that the vast majority of the warming is in nighttime lows not going as low
in the winter and spring cycles.
More recent publications combine and evaluate many of the earlier papers.
Diurnal asymmetry to the observed global warming - Davy - 2016 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library
diurnal2.jpg
This paper seems to focus on the Northern Hemisphere, because as the graphic shows the
Southern Hemisphere has minimal contribution to the temperature increases.
 
longview said:
No it doesn't, but the greenhouse effect is not in question.
What is in question is the climate sensitivity of the additional CO2, and the fact that it is behaving differently that the modelers predicted.
Here is what James Hansen wrote in 1995.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_ha09800r.pdf

So he expected the T-Max and the T-Min to be equal.
Click to expand...

I would not expect the T max to increase on a daily basis, if there is a huge blanket of clouds covering the earth. I would expect the nighttime low temperatures to be higher and the daytime high temp to hold steady or slightly decrease, in the short term, as the planet's average temperature increases. Eventually, daytime and nighttime temps will be equal, and, of course, much higher than they are today.

Take Venus and Mercury. The former has very little temperature difference between the side facing the sun and its dark side. Why? Because the planet is covered in greenhouse gases. Mercury, OTOH, has the exact opposite situation. It's temperatures on the surface facing the sun is scorching, while its dark side T is near absolute zero. Why? Mercury has no atmosphere. Venus, although much further from the sun, has a higher average temperature than Mercury.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
I would not expect the T max to increase on a daily basis, if there is a huge blanket of clouds covering the earth. I would expect the nighttime low temperatures to be higher and the daytime high temp to hold steady or slightly decrease, in the short term, as the planet's average temperature increases. Eventually, daytime and nighttime temps will be equal, and, of course, much higher than they are today.
Click to expand...
Why would you expect this?
The quantum action of CO2 occurs 24 hours a day, in fact there is a higher percentage
of long wavelength ground emissions during the daytime.
This is why an actual greenhouse warms up more in the daytime than at night.
The asymmetry has been observed for over a century, if you think it will eventually change when will that be?
 
longview said:
Why would you expect this?
The quantum action of CO2 occurs 24 hours a day, in fact there is a higher percentage
of long wavelength ground emissions during the daytime.
This is why an actual greenhouse warms up more in the daytime than at night.
The asymmetry has been observed for over a century, if you think it will eventually change when will that be?
Click to expand...

As the earth cools less each night, the daytime T will increase proportionally over time.

Cloud cover blocks sunlight. So, the more gases in the atmosphere, the less direct sunlight hits the earth. Hence, lower daytime temps are observed in Seattle than in the high desert on the other side of the Cascades.

GH gases are not exclusively CO2. Water vapor plays a huge roll in the process. The mathematical models get hairy. But, in general, we are talking about increased cloud cover over all, not just CO2.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You believe The Guardian over papers?

please source the paper, instead of stupid journalists.
Click to expand...

If you don't like the source...go find another one.
 

Records of temperature that go back far further than 1800s suggest warming of recent decades is out of step with any period over the past millennium
[/INDENT

Suggest...

By who's viewpoint (opinion...)

Suggest:


1
a obsolete : to seek to influence : seduceb : to call forth : evokec : to mention or imply as a possibility <suggested that he might bring his family>d : to propose as desirable or fitting <suggest a stroll>e : to offer for consideration or as a hypothesis <suggest a solution to a problem>

2
a : to call to mind by thought or association <the explosion…suggested sabotage — F. L. Paxson>b : to serve as a motive or inspiration for <a play suggested by a historic incident>
​

Suggest is a word that is meaningless when trying to quantify anything in science.

Calamity... They pulled the wool over your eyes once again!

We have no proxy records that are high enough resolution for the suggestion to be any more than opinion.​
 
calamity said:
As the earth cools less each night, the daytime T will increase proportionally over time.

Cloud cover blocks sunlight. So, the more gases in the atmosphere, the less direct sunlight hits the earth. Hence, lower daytime temps are observed in Seattle than in the high desert on the other side of the Cascades.

GH gases are not exclusively CO2. Water vapor plays a huge roll in the process. The mathematical models get hairy. But, in general, we are talking about increased cloud cover over all, not just CO2.
Click to expand...
If things worked as you lay them out, we would be cooling not warming, as the energy to feed the process would be reflected before it arrived.
Besides Hansen clearly states he thinks that they are equal but that the T-Max is dampened, and that that dampening will eventually go away.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_ha09800r.pdf
Finally, we note that the claim made by "greenhouse critics" in the popular press,
that global warming is a "benign" nighttime phenomenon, is incorrect. The temperature
changes, as we have shown, represent the combination of an overall warming and a damping
of the diurnal cycle. We can safely predict that on the long run the effect of the diurnal
damping on maximum temperatures will be small, for the following three reasons.
First, even during the past four decades the 0.56°C damping of the diurnal cycle did
not eliminate daytime warming, but rather reduced it from 0.56°C to 0.28°C.
Second, as illustrated by Fig. 21, almost all of the damping caused by a climate forcing
occurs immediately with the introduction of the forcing, while the mean temperature rise
is delayed by the thermal inertia of the climate system. Thus the unrealized warming for
greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will appear almost equally in daily maximum and
daily minimum temperatures.
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
If things worked as you lay them out, we would be cooling not warming, as the energy to feed the process would be reflected before it arrived.
Besides Hansen clearly states he thinks that they are equal but that the T-Max is dampened, and that that dampening will eventually go away.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_ha09800r.pdf
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Is Venus cooling? No sunlight reaches the surface. By the logic in your argument, the planet should be freezing.

Do you even understand atmospheric heating? It clearly has nothing to do with daytime temperatures on the surface.
 
calamity said:
Nonsense. Is Venus cooling? No sunlight reaches the surface. By the logic in your argument, the planet should be freezing.

Do you even understand atmospheric heating? It clearly has nothing to do with daytime temperatures on the surface.
Click to expand...
Venus is not a good comparison for earth, It has a very thick atmosphere,
In addition the greenhouse effect described for AGW would never work on Venus because as you said "No sunlight reaches the surface".
Short wavelength light reaching the surface is what fuels the greenhouse effect on earth.
Remember the IPCC's nice picture,
climate_system.jpg
 
azgreg said:
How do we know that a warmer planet isn't a happier planet?
Click to expand...

Isn't that the sort of thing we should know for certain before cranking up the thermostat?
 
longview said:
Venus is not a good comparison for earth, It has a very thick atmosphere,
In addition the greenhouse effect described for AGW would never work on Venus because as you said "No sunlight reaches the surface".
Short wavelength light reaching the surface is what fuels the greenhouse effect on earth.
Remember the IPCC's nice picture,
View attachment 67206687
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure why you would think we'd see warmer temps during the day and not less cooling at night. And, you can't compare it to an actual greenhouse, since greenhouses do not have a convection rich environment like the earth--you know heat being dissipated by winds rains and pressure gradients.

The heat in the day would be highest in places with dry air and no cloud cover. Those places also cool quite a bit at night. Areas shrouded in clouds and high humidity heat up less in the day but cool off hardly at all over night.
 
calamity said:
I'm still not sure why you would think we'd see warmer temps during the day and not less cooling at night. And, you can't compare it to an actual greenhouse, since greenhouses do not have a convection rich environment like the earth--you know heat being dissipated by winds rains and pressure gradients.

The heat in the day would be highest in places with dry air and no cloud cover. Those places also cool quite a bit at night. Areas shrouded in clouds and high humidity heat up less in the day but cool off hardly at all over night.
Click to expand...
I know you have this feeling, but the energy imbalance discussed in AGW is based on incoming energy vs outgoing energy.
At night there is no incoming energy, so the IPCC image would look very different.
No, the modelers expect the greenhouse effect to produce equal warming day and night.
That is why Hansen wrote,
Thus the unrealized warming for greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere
will appear almost equally in daily maximum and daily minimum temperatures.
Click to expand...
Since the sun heated ground is the source for the energy causing the greenhouse effect,
there should be even more IR photons during the sunlight hours.
 
longview said:
I know you have this feeling, but the energy imbalance discussed in AGW is based on incoming energy vs outgoing energy.
At night there is no incoming energy, so the IPCC image would look very different.
No, the modelers expect the greenhouse effect to produce equal warming day and night.
That is why Hansen wrote,

Since the sun heated ground is the source for the energy causing the greenhouse effect,
there should be even more IR photons during the sunlight hours.
Click to expand...
Well, that would depend on if direct sunlight is actually hitting the ground. So, we'd need to see what daytime Temps do in places with little cloud cover. Are those places getting hotter by day? Also, and this is even more important, is the ocean getting warmer?
 
calamity said:
Well, that would depend on if direct sunlight is actually hitting the ground. So, we'd need to see what daytime Temps do in places with little cloud cover. Are those places getting hotter by day? Also, and this is even more important, is the ocean getting warmer?
Click to expand...
You are deflecting, the question is when would the greenhouse effect be the most active, day ,night, or equally.
The published Scientific literature seems to state equal.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_ha09800r.pdf
Thus the unrealized warming for greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere
will appear almost equally in daily maximum and daily minimum temperatures.
Click to expand...
Yet the diurnal asymmetry has been observed for over a century.
The opening paragraph of Arrhenius 1896 paper states,
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
A great deal has been written on the influence of the absorption of the atmosphere upon the climate.
Tyndail in particular has pointed out the enormous importance of this question.
To him it was chiefly the diurnal and annual variations of the temperature that
were lessened by this circumstance.
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
You are deflecting, the question is when would the greenhouse effect be the most active, day ,night, or equally.
The published Scientific literature seems to state equal.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_ha09800r.pdf

Yet the diurnal asymmetry has been observed for over a century.
The opening paragraph of Arrhenius 1896 paper states,
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Click to expand...

It's you who is deflecting. The earth is getting warmer. You seem to want to discuss that it's not getting warmer during the day. wtf?
 
calamity said:
Nonsense. Is Venus cooling? No sunlight reaches the surface. By the logic in your argument, the planet should be freezing.

Do you even understand atmospheric heating? It clearly has nothing to do with daytime temperatures on the surface.
Click to expand...

Anyone who uses Venus to equate earth warming is showing their lack of understanding. Such people should be laughed at. Not listened to.
 
calamity said:
It's you who is deflecting. The earth is getting warmer. You seem to want to discuss that it's not getting warmer during the day. wtf?
Click to expand...
The earth has been warmer several times before we industrialized. You guys want to blame it all on man, but the cycles of nature play a very significant role too.
 
calamity said:
It's you who is deflecting. The earth is getting warmer. You seem to want to discuss that it's not getting warmer during the day. wtf?
Click to expand...
The point is that the modelers are expecting equal warming and it is not happening,
Ether they have the wrong idea of how CO2 causes warming, or there are variables
the models are not accounting for. Ether way, while we are warming,
we are clearly not warming they way they predicted.
Are warmer evenings mostly in winter and spring bad? perhaps, but likely less of an issue
if the same increase were in summer daytime highs.
 
longview said:
The point is that the modelers are expecting equal warming and it is not happening,
Ether they have the wrong idea of how CO2 causes warming, or there are variables
the models are not accounting for. Ether way, while we are warming,
we are clearly not warming they way they predicted.
Are warmer evenings mostly in winter and spring bad? perhaps, but likely less of an issue
if the same increase were in summer daytime highs.
Click to expand...

Of course the models are not perfect.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Anyone who uses Venus to equate earth warming is showing their lack of understanding. Such people should be laughed at. Not listened to.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Lord of Planar said:
The earth has been warmer several times before we industrialized. You guys want to blame it all on man, but the cycles of nature play a very significant role too.
Click to expand...
"You guys"?
 
calamity said:
Of course the models are not perfect.
Click to expand...
It is not perfection we are talking about, but gross errors.
Lets say the modelers predict 100 units of total warming, 50 in T-Min and 50 in T-Max (equal amounts),
and then the observed data shows up with 50 in the T-Min, but only 18 in the T-Max.
Total warming 68 units, 32% lower than predicted.
 
longview said:
It is not perfection we are talking about, but gross errors.
Lets say the modelers predict 100 units of total warming, 50 in T-Min and 50 in T-Max (equal amounts),
and then the observed data shows up with 50 in the T-Min, but only 18 in the T-Max.
Total warming 68 units, 32% lower than predicted.
Click to expand...

So? They predicted 15% chance of rain yesterday afternoon. So, I ride my bike. It rained like hell for three hours. :shrug:
 
calamity said:
So? They predicted 15% chance of rain yesterday afternoon. So, I ride my bike. It rained like hell for three hours. :shrug:
Click to expand...
It rains a lot here, in my area a 15% chance of rain seems to mean 100% chance over 15% of the area.
Back on topic, This thread is about GISS's Gavin Schmidt saying ,
“It’s unprecedented in 1,000 years. There’s no period that has the trend seen in the 20th century in terms of the inclination (of temperatures).”
It is know that El Nino events cause temporary warming at a much higher rate than AGW,
in addition, the proxy records lack the resolution to demonstrate if this type of warming has occurred in the last 1000 years.
Since Dr. Schmidt did not attach a number to his period comment, we have no way to verify.
A quick look at his GISS data (he is the director of the GISS, so it is his data),
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
shows there have been many say, 5 year periods of greater warming.
Perhaps he meant a greater time period, well a decade delta still shows a few with higher numbers,
with the decade ending in 1943 showing the greatest warming.
Maybe his time period was shorter, say 2 years, really work that El Nino data.
Shoot, that can't be it since the year ending in 1931 had the highest two year growth.
Well maybe his time increment of unprecedented warming was some sub year number, or what we call weather!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom