Arctic Cold Smashes October Records in the West, Plains

longview · Dec 9, 2019

digitusmedius said:
Are you now actually admitting you just have an opinion based on an irrelevant piece of research done some 60 years ago on a subject that has now been thoroughly studied and shows that this idea of CO₂ being a brake on warming is total BS?

If you think atmospheric absorption in the infrared has been tested and the results of those test published
then cite those papers? Until you can cite them, the empirical data from the 50's and 60's stands.
Also the first law of thermodynamics is a bit of a hurdle to overcome, "energy cannot be created or destroyed!"
if all the energy is already in the band is already absorbed, there is simply no additional energy to absorb.
The best added CO2 could do would be to pick up some minor bands on the edges, but that would start to run into
where H2O absorbs.

Lord of Planar · Dec 9, 2019

digitusmedius said:
Nothing in that comment makes any sense. To begin with, where does the term "wings" appear in the article and where do you see a comment or graphic evidence that "sensitivity took a drop." Inventing your own terms is the typical way you deniers like to use to obfuscate (lie) about global warming. All you've done is show us either how dishonest you are or how amateurish you understanding of science is--neither of which is news to us.

It's a term that you find in other papers regarding the effect.

Theoretical results for the far-wing line shapes and corresponding absorption coefficients in the high-frequency wing of the ν 3 fundamental band of self-broadened CO2 are presented for a number of temperatures between 218 and 751 K. These first-principles calculations are made assuming binary collisions within the framework of a quasi-static theory with a more accurate interaction potential than in previous calculations. The theoretical results are compared with existing laboratory data and are in good agreement for all the temperatures considered.

Abstract from: OSA | Theoretical far-wing line shape and absorption for high-temperature CO2

Why do you insist on debating topics you are clueless about?

I've been exposed to such terminology years ago. I'm sorry your default position is to see me ignorant because I used a term the article in the blog didn't.

It is you who are clueless.

digitusmedius · Dec 9, 2019

longview said:
From your citation.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii

So they are saying exactly what I was saying, the wavelength range between 13.5 and 17 microns can be considered to be saturated.

OK, re: the "wings," so you accept that outside that narrow range of absorption there's much more absorption available so the idea that it serves as a "brake" (my term) on atmospheric warming from adding CO₂ to the atmosphere is false.

digitusmedius · Dec 9, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
It's a term that you find in other papers regarding the effect.

Theoretical results for the far-wing line shapes and corresponding absorption coefficients in the high-frequency wing of the ν 3 fundamental band of self-broadened CO2 are presented for a number of temperatures between 218 and 751 K. These first-principles calculations are made assuming binary collisions within the framework of a quasi-static theory with a more accurate interaction potential than in previous calculations. The theoretical results are compared with existing laboratory data and are in good agreement for all the temperatures considered.

Abstract from: OSA | Theoretical far-wing line shape and absorption for high-temperature CO2

Why do you insist on debating topics you are clueless about?

If I'm clueless then you must be in the coma "wing" of science denial. You and longview have been laser-focused on that tiny fraction of the IR spectrum in order to ignore the data that shows that CO₂ continues to absorb 99.6% of that spectrum and the data showing that adding CO₂ does, in fact, increase that absorption contrary to denier claims. The difference between you two and me is that you pretend you're climate scientists and I merely cite them.

digitusmedius · Dec 9, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
I've been exposed to such terminology years ago. I'm sorry your default position is to see me ignorant because I used a term the article in the blog didn't.

It is you who are clueless.

That's a very embarrassing admission for you to make--if you had any capacity for embarrassment, that is. It's so obvious that all of that alleged "exposure" has been completely wasted. The only face-saving move you've got now is to admit that your views on climate change come entirely from you politics and have nothing to do with science. At least that would be the honest thing to do.

longview · Dec 9, 2019

digitusmedius said:
OK, re: the "wings," so you accept that outside that narrow range of absorption there's much more absorption available so the idea that it serves as a "brake" (my term) on atmospheric warming from adding CO₂ to the atmosphere is false.

Not much more! the pressure broadening is a secondary effect, which is why they showed it on a log scale.
but use the data from your own blog citation.

FYI they did not show their data, or state the range of wavelengths of the infrared flashlight.
We can however read their graph.
1XCO2 is at ~67% transmission at <5 meters
2XCO2 is at ~639% transmission at <5 meters.
The greenhouse warming of 33°C is based on an energy imbalance of 150 Wm-2,
of this 150 Wm-2 up to 26%, or 39 Wm-2 is attributed to CO2.
If we convert the above percentages to changes in energy imbalance,
we see that doubling the CO2 level, will add an imbalance of 1.1 Wm-2.
This amount from an alarmist blog site is much lower
than the predicted amount of forcing of 3.71 Wm-2.
This is based on maximum estimations, the actual amount is likely less, as the empirical data shows complete saturation
in the range in question.

digitusmedius · Dec 9, 2019

OrphanSlug said:
Uh oh, don't be that guy.

You will end up looking like James Inhofe (OK-R) who brought a snowball onto the floor of the Senate as an argument to dispute climate change.

Inhofe looks like a genius compared to PoS. By that, I mean that still not knowing the difference between climate and weather this far into the problem qualifies for brain-dead status. And I don't think Inhofe was not quite brain-dead when he pulled that idiotic stunt.

digitusmedius · Dec 9, 2019

longview said:
Not much more! the pressure broadening is a secondary effect, which is why they showed it on a log scale.
but use the data from your own blog citation.

FYI they did not show their data, or state the range of wavelengths of the infrared flashlight.
We can however read their graph.
1XCO2 is at ~67% transmission at <5 meters
2XCO2 is at ~639% transmission at <5 meters.
The greenhouse warming of 33°C is based on an energy imbalance of 150 Wm-2,
of this 150 Wm-2 up to 26%, or 39 Wm-2 is attributed to CO2.
If we convert the above percentages to changes in energy imbalance,
we see that doubling the CO2 level, will add an imbalance of 1.1 Wm-2.
This amount from an alarmist blog site is much lower
than the predicted amount of forcing of 3.71 Wm-2.
This is based on maximum estimations, the actual amount is likely less, as the empirical data shows complete saturation
in the range in question.

Here's the explanatory comment from the article immediately below that graph (emphasis added)--not sure where your quote came from:

The transmission decays extremely rapidly for short tubes (under a centimeter or so), because when light first encounters CO2, it’s the easy pickings near the peak of the absorption spectrum that are eaten up first. At larger tube lengths, because of shape of the curve of absorption vs. wavelength, the transmission decreases rather slowly with the amount of CO2. And it’s a good thing it does. You can show that if the transmission decayed exponentially, as it would if the absorption factor were independent of wavelength, then doubling CO2 would warm the Earth by about 50 degrees C instead of 2 to 4 degrees (which is plenty bad enough, once you factor in that warming is greater over land vs. ocean and at high Northern latitudes).

In the case of the thickest part of earth's atmosphere (i.e., troposphere) of ~15km on average the decay is considerably slowed. In the first part of this article it was also pointed out that one effect of warming is to push increasing amounts of unabsorbed CO₂ into higher altitudes which would prolong its warming effect.

longview · Dec 9, 2019

digitusmedius said:
Here's the explanatory comment from the article immediately below that graph (emphasis added)--not sure where your quote came from:

In the case of the thickest part of earth's atmosphere (i.e., troposphere) of ~15km on average the decay is considerably slowed. In the first part of this article it was also pointed out that one effect of warming is to push increasing amounts of unabsorbed CO₂ into higher altitudes which would prolong its warming effect.

Except that the real climate blog article is pure opinion.
The empirical data shows that for the range in question 13.5 to 17 um, it is already saturated, and your article said the same thing.
Outside of the normal CO2 absorption band, there already exists other molecules with their own absorption bands.
ozone and H2O are right there, and the same pressure broadening would affect them as well.
I am guessing that you were not able to find any more recent papers showing different results than the 50's and 60's papers?

AProudLefty · Dec 9, 2019

Tim the plumber said:
No. But I can explain my case.

That's the difference.

What is your reason to think that the world/humanity will have a problem from a slight warming?

The imbalances in the atmosphere will cause more hurricanes and floods.

What is your reason to think that the world/humanity won't have a problem from a slight warming?

AProudLefty · Dec 9, 2019

Tim the plumber said:
Again, that is the point.

I think you have no idea what you are talking about despite you being utterly convinced of it.

If you had a clue you would be able to explain it.

I never presented any case. It's your imagination.

Lord of Planar · Dec 9, 2019

digitusmedius said:
If I'm clueless then you must be in the coma "wing" of science denial. You and longview have been laser-focused on that tiny fraction of the IR spectrum in order to ignore the data that shows that CO₂ continues to absorb 99.6% of that spectrum and the data showing that adding CO₂ does, in fact, increase that absorption contrary to denier claims. The difference between you two and me is that you pretend you're climate scientists and I merely cite them.

Goodbye.

You are in complete denial of anything reasonable we say.

Glitch · Dec 9, 2019

Speaking of "Arctic Cold" (which never actually reaches the lower-48), our Chinook Winds came early this winter. They normally arrive in January, but this year they started in December. We went from +13°F to +46°F overnight with hurricane force gusts of warm southerly winds. So even in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley of Alaska we are not being effected by "Arctic Cold." We're going to stay in the mid-40°Fs for the rest of the week it would seem. So much for what little snow we had.

ataraxia · Dec 9, 2019

PoS said:
Arctic Cold Smashes October Records in the West, Plains | The Weather Channel

LOL... I wonder what the climate jihadists will say this time...

I know a guy who has cancer- losing weight because of it in a very serious way, and down to 90 lbs (he used to weigh 185 lbs). He is looking gaunt.

But the other day he showed me this large mass growing in his belly, making it protrude like someone who has been overeating and gaining weight. That must mean he is doing better, right? :slapme:

Tim the plumber · Dec 10, 2019

AProudLefty said:
The imbalances in the atmosphere will cause more hurricanes and floods.

What is your reason to think that the world/humanity won't have a problem from a slight warming?

1, There is no trend in more floods or storms. There is also a lack of any paper or such to explain the mechanism for this. There are dodgy hype statements out of those who model the climate and need the grants only.

2, The lack of anybody able to explain how it will be in any way significantly bad.

Tim the plumber · Dec 10, 2019

AProudLefty said:
I never presented any case. It's your imagination.

Which is my piont!

Glitch · Dec 10, 2019

Tim the plumber said:
1, There is no trend in more floods or storms. There is also a lack of any paper or such to explain the mechanism for this. There are dodgy hype statements out of those who model the climate and need the grants only.

In all fairness, trends for floods and storms span decades. The average number of hurricanes to strike the US mainland is 17.7 per decade, with 6 of them being either a category 3, 4, or 5. Between 2001 and 2004 we had 9 hurricanes hit the US, with 3 of them being category 3, 4, or 5. Which pretty much puts us at the average for the last 150 years.

Source:
U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

Tim the plumber said:
2, The lack of anybody able to explain how it will be in any way significantly bad.

Yet there are numerous examples of how humanity has benefited from this Modern Warming period. The technological advancements alone since the Modern Warming began far surpass anything we have ever done before.

Individual · Dec 10, 2019

Whatever the truth, adapt and live.

digitusmedius · Dec 10, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
Goodbye.

You are in complete denial of anything reasonable we say.

Ahh, the standard last resort of failed argument: Massive Projection.

digitusmedius · Dec 10, 2019

Glitch said:
Speaking of "Arctic Cold" (which never actually reaches the lower-48), our Chinook Winds came early this winter. They normally arrive in January, but this year they started in December. We went from +13°F to +46°F overnight with hurricane force gusts of warm southerly winds. So even in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley of Alaska we are not being effected by "Arctic Cold." We're going to stay in the mid-40°Fs for the rest of the week it would seem. So much for what little snow we had.

When that big cold spell hit the lower 48 last month, the temp in Austin, TX was 9⁰F while Nome was 31⁰F. And that's the problem because this is what's driving a big part of Arctic ice loss and sea level rise. But, don't let that stop you from pretending there's nothing strange going on.

digitusmedius · Dec 10, 2019

Tim the plumber said:
1, There is no trend in more floods or storms. There is also a lack of any paper or such to explain the mechanism for this. There are dodgy hype statements out of those who model the climate and need the grants only.

2, The lack of anybody able to explain how it will be in any way significantly bad.

I know making up **** is fun for the cult of climate denial but here are some facts (Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!). Seventeen of the 20 most damaging US hurricanes on record have occurred just since 2000:

Screen Shot 2019-12-10 at 9.16.13 AM.jpg

Screen Shot 2019-12-10 at 9.12.32 AM.jpg

Screen Shot 2019-12-10 at 9.13.07 AM.jpg

Data from NOAA
source: Hurricane Damage and Costs to the U.S. Economy

Lord of Planar · Dec 10, 2019

digitusmedius said:
When that big cold spell hit the lower 48 last month, the temp in Austin, TX was 9⁰F while Nome was 31⁰F. And that's the problem because this is what's driving a big part of Arctic ice loss and sea level rise. But, don't let that stop you from pretending there's nothing strange going on.

Sorry, you are either repeating misinformation or lying.

Austin never has got as cold a 9F It's been colder than 9C, but not 9F.

Tim the plumber · Dec 10, 2019

digitusmedius said:
I know making up **** is fun for the cult of climate denial but here are some facts (Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!). Seventeen of the 20 most damaging US hurricanes on record have occurred just since 2000:

View attachment 67269705
View attachment 67269701
View attachment 67269702
View attachment 67269703

Data from NOAA
source: Hurricane Damage and Costs to the U.S. Economy

Most damaging is not the same as most sever.

Most damaging just means that people are living on the shore/beach more. That people havbe more valuable properties with more insurance.

digitusmedius · Dec 10, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
Sorry, you are either repeating misinformation or lying.

Austin never has got as cold a 9F It's been colder than 9C, but not 9F.

Neither one. When I make mistakes, I admit it. I may have misremembered which cities in the lower 48 were colder than Alaska. So here's another example of what I meant to point out:

It’s warmer in Alaska than in Alabama today - al.com

Lord of Planar · Dec 10, 2019

digitusmedius said:
Neither one. When I make mistakes, I admit it. I may have misremembered which cities in the lower 48 were colder than Alaska. So here's another example of what I meant to point out:

It’s warmer in Alaska than in Alabama today - al.com

Who cares?

This is a normal occurrence.