Guardian: Heatwave sees record high temperatures around world this week

[Into the Night]

Nothing you're writing refutes the fact that feedbacks and tipping points exist. Nor is "runaway warming" the only danger.

WRONG. Unstable systems would have already tripped. Earth's temperature is stable.

Yeah, no. There's massive amounts of carbon locked up in permafrost. Studies show up to 1.5 trillion tons of carbon is stored in permafrost. Obviously it won't release all of that in a matter of weeks, but it is not mere speculation that melting permafrost could hit a tipping point. And even without tipping points, massive releases of carbon and methane will still increase temperatures.

Methane is incapable of warming the Earth.

People may say that, but when it comes to proof, we ought to pay attention to scientists

Compositional error involving people as the class. Bigotry. Scientists can't even agree on what the color 'red' means.

-- who do this crazy thing called make measurements and observations before making those kinds of claims.

Science is not observations or data. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Observations and their resulting data is subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are part of no theory of science. They are evidence only. Science does not use supporting evidence.

E.g. we actually monitor CO2 releases by permafrost; so when we see that parts of Siberia and Alaska are warming,

Some people need a hobby.

and that the permafrost in those regions are releasing more CO2 than they trap? Yeah, that's a feedback effect.

None. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth.

We also have actual measurements of water vapor,

None. It is not possible to measure the water vapor content of Earth.

plankton growth rates,

None. It is not possible to measure the global plankton growth rate.

ice melt rates,

None. It is not possible to measure the global rate of ice melting.

melting snow cover extent,

None.It is not possible to measure how much snow cover is going to melt.

comparisons of precipitation....

None. It is not possible to measure a global precipitation.

Please, spare us your made-up numbers.

Inversion fallacy Argument from randU (making up random numbers) fallacy.

Methane is not just a known GHG, it is one of the most potent GHGs,

Methane is incapable of warming the Earth.

trapping at least 28 times more heat than CO2 at equivalent masses.

It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to trap thermal energy either. There is always heat.

Again, runaway temperatures is a danger -- but not the only one. Even without that scenario, temperatures are still rising at an unprecedented rate, and will cause significant damage.

Unstable systems would have already triggered long before now.

Yes, I'm sure the reason why temperatures have increased roughly 0.8C since 1880 is because the mass of Earth's atmosphere changed all on its own.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Please, spare us this nonsense. GHGs are real.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are still denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

We're dumping massive amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere.

No such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.

And yes, this manifests with record-shattering heat waves around the globe,

Heat waves shatter records around the world every year. We've had that since we first started keeping records.

and which bumped July 2018 to the 5th hottest on record.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

Stop the madness. Again, the experimental chamber can control all the variables, including making changes that emulate what we observe in the atmosphere. It won't be 100% perfect, but it does allow us to change those variables in order to produce viable tests, in conditions we won't find in the real world.



Or, not. Unless, of course, you claim to know exactly where all the tipping points are, in which case you can collect your Nobel Prize next year.



Just what I always wanted: More bull****.

25% of the land mass in the Northern Hemisphere is (still) permafrost. Not much has melted yet. Once it does start to really melt, it could unlock up to 150 billion tons of CO2. In comparison, the US emitted around 5.4 billion tons of CO2 in 2017. Even if only half that amount of permafrost melts, the impact could be immense.

Absorption of surface infrared light by a magick holy gas does not warm the Earth.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

 

[Dittohead not!]

CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.

I get my information from the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You have misinterpreted those laws.

Without Carbon dioxide, the Earth would be frozen. The last ice age was mild compared to what it would be without that greenhouse gas. Moreover, life as we know it could not exist here at all.

Here's something from the real scientists for you to ignore:

Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C). The concentration of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide and methane, has fluctuated naturally over geological time scales.
Greenhouse Gases: Refining the Role of Carbon Dioxide - NASA GISS

If the Earth were to be 59 degrees colder on average, it would not matter. We wouldn't be here anyway were it not for CO2.

 

[Lord of Planar]

20km of atmosphere is different to a jar.

That is the problem.

So true. In the jar, we can show CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is far from simulation a complete atmospheric column with energy of various spectra coming at it from all directions.

Just shows the ignorance of these people.

 

[Lord of Planar]

:roll:

Why do you imagine this is impossible? Pressure, wind, composition, humidity temperature and more can all be controlled in a lab. E.g. CERN's CLOUD experiment is measuring the effects of cosmic rays on clouds and aerosols in the atmosphere, right here on the ground:
<snip>

The problem is getting the variables correct and to scale. The CERN experiment is looking at changes, and will be able to record various responses. However, it is impossible to properly quantify the responses in the open atmosphere.

 

[Visbek]

The problem is getting the variables correct and to scale. The CERN experiment is looking at changes, and will be able to record various responses. However, it is impossible to properly quantify the responses in the open atmosphere.

Well, if the CERN CLOUD experiment is flawed, then so are Svensmark's papers. After all, that's the chamber he is using to run his experiments.

Unless, of course, lab experiments work just fine when the results are critical of AGW... lol

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well, if the CERN CLOUD experiment is flawed, then so are Svensmark's papers. After all, that's the chamber he is using to run his experiments.

Unless, of course, lab experiments work just fine when the results are critical of AGW... lol

If that's what your arrogance says...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well, if the CERN CLOUD experiment is flawed, then so are Svensmark's papers. After all, that's the chamber he is using to run his experiments.

Unless, of course, lab experiments work just fine when the results are critical of AGW... lol

Do you understand the difference between putting measured numbers on cause and effect, and claiming that the numbers are accurate? The idea is to show there is an effect from the tested variable. Trying to quantify it in the atmosphere is far more involved, and with uncertain error ranges.

 

[Into the Night]

You have misinterpreted those laws.

Nothing to 'interpret'. They are plain and straightforward.

Without Carbon dioxide, the Earth would be frozen.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

So true. In the jar, we can show CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is far from simulation a complete atmospheric column with energy of various spectra coming at it from all directions.

Just shows the ignorance of these people.

All the jar shows is that CO2 happens to absorb a narrow range of IR light. Absorbing IR light from the surface doesn't warm the Earth though.

 

[Surface Detail]

All the jar shows is that CO2 happens to absorb a narrow range of IR light. Absorbing IR light from the surface doesn't warm the Earth though.

True. It's the IR radiated by the atmosphere (in addition to solar radiation) that warms the Earth.

 

[Visbek]

If that's what your arrogance says...

Are you denying that Svensmark uses CERN CLOUD?

 

[Visbek]

Do you understand the difference between putting measured numbers on cause and effect, and claiming that the numbers are accurate?

Do you understand that the scientists who are running these kinds of experiments are well aware of the variables that they have to manage?

Are you suggesting that it is impossible for any lab experiment, including ones managed by one of the best labs in the world, to get reasonably accurate results?

And if so, then why didn't you raise those concerns in the thread about Svensmark's study, which used exactly this equipment?

 

[longview]

Stop the madness. Again, the experimental chamber can control all the variables, including making changes that emulate what we observe in the atmosphere. It won't be 100% perfect, but it does allow us to change those variables in order to produce viable tests, in conditions we won't find in the real world.



Or, not. Unless, of course, you claim to know exactly where all the tipping points are, in which case you can collect your Nobel Prize next year.



Just what I always wanted: More bull****.

25% of the land mass in the Northern Hemisphere is (still) permafrost. Not much has melted yet. Once it does start to really melt, it could unlock up to 150 billion tons of CO2. In comparison, the US emitted around 5.4 billion tons of CO2 in 2017. Even if only half that amount of permafrost melts, the impact could be immense.

Made up numbers about methane, please, the numbers came from the American Chemical Society.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

And no, methane is quite a bit less effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, at least according to the ACS.

25% of the land mass in the Northern Hemisphere is (still) permafrost.

I will check, but that seems high.

*bzzt* wrong, we can get a pretty good idea of normal temperatures, before we started slamming the atmosphere with GHGs. (And no, don't give me your usual bull**** about "but the resolution is different!" We know what's happening, and it is not good.)

Let't start with I can describe 1 variable that the above chamber cannot control, you said they can control them all.
The population inversion of a partial pressure gas in a 30,000 meter high atmosphere, You cannot control or emulate that in a 5 meter high tank.
Why is that important? because once a CO2 molecule absorbs a 15 um photon, it must wait about 40 to 50 milliseconds to receive another one.
A heat source capable of emitting 15 um photons could emit one about every 50 picoseconds.
400 ppm CO2 provides a mean free path of about .25 mm, so within under one second the above tank would hit a population inversion.

I do not have to know where the tipping points are, only that we appear to be at the upper rail already.


We do not have a good idea on the normal temperature swings, and Marcott had an average temporal resolution of 120 years, and so might not so the 1978 to 1998 warming.

 

[Casper]

Lucky for us it is cooler.



Here in Virginia, in the northern hemisphere, it's cooler than normal today.

But I'm glad you featured Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, the greatest of the 1960's girl groups.

BS, we are breaking high temp records here in Texas at a record pace, and much of North America are doing the same. Think cool thoughts, if only that truly worked......

 

[Into the Night]

Do you understand that the scientists who are running these kinds of experiments are well aware of the variables that they have to manage?

Are you suggesting that it is impossible for any lab experiment, including ones managed by one of the best labs in the world, to get reasonably accurate results?

And if so, then why didn't you raise those concerns in the thread about Svensmark's study, which used exactly this equipment?

I am also aware that experiments of this kind can't properly emulate what is going on the open atmosphere.

 

[Into the Night]

BS, we are breaking high temp records here in Texas at a record pace, and much of North America are doing the same. Think cool thoughts, if only that truly worked......

For the moment. That happens every year. It is not a record pace.

Did you know that Texas is not the entire Earth? I know that can be hard for some Texans to accept, but...

BTW, the Pacific Northwest is experiencing cooler than usual temperatures this year, especially during our spring. Meh. Happens every so often.

 

[Casper]

For the moment. That happens every year. It is not a record pace.

Did you know that Texas is not the entire Earth? I know that can be hard for some Texans to accept, but...

BTW, the Pacific Northwest is experiencing cooler than usual temperatures this year, especially during our spring.

Wrong, it not Normal to break so many records. Oh, I mentioned that it was happening in in much of North America, reading is fundamental, try reading slower next time.

 

[Jack Hays]

BS, we are breaking high temp records here in Texas at a record pace, and much of North America are doing the same. Think cool thoughts, if only that truly worked......

Even all of North America is only a small fraction of the globe. Global temperatures are cooling.
And btw, here in Virginia we're not setting any records.

 

[Casper]

Even all of North America is only a small fraction of the globe. Global temperatures are cooling.
And btw, here in Virginia we're not setting any records.

Yes, that is why glaciers and the polar caps are melting, it got too cold for too long.....

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, that is why glaciers and the polar caps are melting, it got too cold for too long.....

Arctic sea ice extent is up slightly in recent years.

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, that is why glaciers and the polar caps are melting, it got too cold for too long.....

Antarctic sea ice extent is also up over last year.

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – Click the pic to view at source​

 

[Casper]

Arctic sea ice extent is up slightly in recent years.

[FONT="]

[/FONT]

Good grief, do read more and open your own eyes. It is one thing to deny that man has anything to do with warming, it is another to try and claim that it is not happening and that we are cooling, the evidence is seriously lacking and people can see for their own eyes.

 

[Jack Hays]

Good grief, do read more and open your own eyes. It is one thing to deny that man has anything to do with warming, it is another to try and claim that it is not happening and that we are cooling, the evidence is seriously lacking and people can see for their own eyes.

The data are the data. With the sun approaching minimum only an occasional El Nino will temporarily prop up generally falling temperatures for some time.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Nothing to 'interpret'. They are plain and straightforward.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

So, NASA is wrong, and you're right.