The psychology of climate change denial

[Tim the plumber]

The land doesn't reach its equilibrium temperature during the daily cycle. Only the top foot or so changes temperature. Equilibrium is only reached when the entire thickness of the ground, down to a depth at which temperature is independent of location, has warmed. This would take many years.

That depth would be of the order of a few feet. The energy flow levels are thus extremely tiny. So no need to consider them.

 

[Surface Detail]

The forcing warming from CO2 alone would be 5.35 X ln(410/280) X.3=.612C

Once again, this is wrong because you are neglecting thermal inertia. That would be the temperature by which the Earth would eventually warm if there were no water vapour and the CO2 concentration were maintained at 410ppm. It is not the temperature that the Earth would have reached today!

The rest of your post is also wrong, but best to focus on one aspect at a time.

 

[Surface Detail]

That depth would be of the order of a few feet. The energy flow levels are thus extremely tiny. So no need to consider them.

Do you really think the temperature a few feet below the Sahara is the same as the temperature a few feet below the Siberian tundra?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Do you really think the temperature a few feet below the Sahara is the same as the temperature a few feet below the Siberian tundra?

No. But the flow rate for a climate temperature difference of a couple of degrees is not going to be significant below 4 inches. Less than 5% of the new forcing within the week.

 

[longview]

Once again, this is wrong because you are neglecting thermal inertia. That would be the temperature by which the Earth would eventually warm if there were no water vapour and the CO2 concentration were maintained at 410ppm. It is not the temperature that the Earth would have reached today!

The rest of your post is also wrong, but best to focus on one aspect at a time.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that water vapor feedback warming from CO2 warming would be near instantaneous,
while at the same time saying that the CO2 forcing warming supposedly causing the water vapor feedback, would take longer.
I sorry, if you increase the energy level in a cubic meter of a gas, the temperature increases.
The temperature is merely one measure of the energy content of a volume of a gas.
If that cubic meter of air happens to be in contact with a cooler surface, like the earth, it could slow the
the upper end of the asymptotical approach to maximum energy.
Keep in mind that temperature readings are taken at 2 meters off the ground, so that cubic meter is not in direct contact with the ground.
There is a reason, Scientist like Hansen use the term instantaneous forcing, about how added CO2 forces warming.

 

[longview]

No. But the flow rate for a climate temperature difference of a couple of degrees is not going to be significant below 4 inches. Less than 5% of the new forcing within the week.

And as a plumber, that is something you would expect your apprentice to know, so they could insure
that water pipes came into a home below the level they could freeze from seasonal changes!

 

[Surface Detail]

You seem to be stuck on the idea that water vapor feedback warming from CO2 warming would be near instantaneous,
while at the same time saying that the CO2 forcing warming supposedly causing the water vapor feedback, would take longer.

Please read more carefully. The CO2 forcing and water vapour feedback are instantaneous; the resulting warming takes time.

 

[Tim the plumber]

And as a plumber, that is something you would expect your apprentice to know, so they could insure
that water pipes came into a home below the level they could freeze from seasonal changes!

I am constanly astounded at the utterl impossibility of most of the Alarmists to grasp the very basics of heat flow physics. These things are learnt by plumbers. Those same plumbers who often got zero qualifications in school. The energy flow between rock at a depth of 2 feet and the surface with an average temperature difference of 1c will be microscopic. Less than 0.001W/m2. So the forcing of 4+ W/m2 will never notice the thermal inertia of the ground.

 

[longview]

Please read more carefully. The CO2 forcing and water vapour feedback are instantaneous; the resulting warming takes time.

The forcing, (increase in energy level)and the air temperature are the same thing.
If you want to argue that the warming of the air from the forcing takes time, that is fine,
but you need to specify the time it would take and justify the estimate.
Remember that air temperature is only a measure of the energy level in that volume of air.

 

[Surface Detail]

No. But the flow rate for a climate temperature difference of a couple of degrees is not going to be significant below 4 inches. Less than 5% of the new forcing within the week.

But that's what you just claimed! You said: "that depth would be of the order of a few feet". You're not being very consistent.

 

[Surface Detail]

The forcing, (increase in energy level)and the air temperature are the same thing.
If you want to argue that the warming of the air from the forcing takes time, that is fine,
but you need to specify the time it would take and justify the estimate.
Remember that air temperature is only a measure of the energy level in that volume of air.

The forcing and the air temperature are not the same thing! They have different units for a start. Not that we're taking about just the air temperature; we are talking about the temperature of the all the ground and (especially) oceans whose temperature depends on the heat from above. Equilibrium is only reached once everything has warmed up.

 

[Surface Detail]

I am constanly astounded at the utterl impossibility of most of the Alarmists to grasp the very basics of heat flow physics. These things are learnt by plumbers. Those same plumbers who often got zero qualifications in school. The energy flow between rock at a depth of 2 feet and the surface with an average temperature difference of 1c will be microscopic. Less than 0.001W/m2. So the forcing of 4+ W/m2 will never notice the thermal inertia of the ground.

You do realise that the low thermal conductivity of rock is one of the reasons why it takes so long to establish thermal equilibrium, don't you?

 

[Tim the plumber]

But that's what you just claimed! You said: "that depth would be of the order of a few feet". You're not being very consistent.

the flow rate for a climate temperature difference of a couple of degrees is not going to be significant below 4 inches. Less than 5% of the new forcing within the week.

 

[Tim the plumber]

You do realise that the low thermal conductivity of rock is one of the reasons why it takes so long to establish thermal equilibrium, don't you?

Do you get that once the actual flow rate of heat energy is below 0.01W/m2 means it is irrelevant?

 

[Surface Detail]

the flow rate for a climate temperature difference of a couple of degrees is not going to be significant below 4 inches. Less than 5% of the new forcing within the week.

So you admit that your claim that "[the depth at which temperature is independent of location is] of the order of a few feet" was incorrect.

 

[Surface Detail]

Do you get that once the actual flow rate of heat energy is below 0.01W/m2 means it is irrelevant?

You are making up figures as well as missing the point.

 

[Tim the plumber]

So you admit that your claim that "[the depth at which temperature is independent of location is] of the order of a few feet" was incorrect.

It is indeed incorrect and I don't think I said it.

 

[Tim the plumber]

You are making up figures as well as missing the point.

Making up figures yes but you get the point.

 

[longview]

The forcing and the air temperature are not the same thing! They have different units for a start. Not that we're taking about just the air temperature; we are talking about the temperature of the all the ground and (especially) oceans whose temperature depends on the heat from above. Equilibrium is only reached once everything has warmed up.

The temperature measured in the temperature records is the air temperature as recorded 2 meters above the ground,
and changes quite quickly throughout the day and night.
Changing the energy level in that volume of air is the same as changing it's temperature.
If the energy level/temperature in a volume of air rose to fixed level and stayed there, eventually the surroundings,
would warm up to the point where there was zero energy movement because there was zero energy difference.
It would be questionable if that would affect the temperature of the volume of the air, it is the same energy level.

 

[Surface Detail]

The temperature measured in the temperature records is the air temperature as recorded 2 meters above the ground,
and changes quite quickly throughout the day and night.
Changing the energy level in that volume of air is the same as changing it's temperature.
If the energy level/temperature in a volume of air rose to fixed level and stayed there, eventually the surroundings,
would warm up to the point where there was zero energy movement because there was zero energy difference.
It would be questionable if that would affect the temperature of the volume of the air, it is the same energy level.

You're still not getting it, are you? Regardless of where you measure the temperature, equilibrium is not reached until the entire system has finished warming and there is no net thermal flux. Please try to understand this.

 

[longview]

You're still not getting it, are you? Regardless of where you measure the temperature, equilibrium is not reached until the entire system has finished warming and there is no net thermal flux. Please try to understand this.

I understand! but that does not stop the air temperature (where it's recorded) from swinging wildly every day.
For the sake of discussion, what time period do you think it would take for equalization over the ground?

 

[Surface Detail]

I understand! but that does not stop the air temperature (where it's recorded) from swinging wildly every day.
For the sake of discussion, what time period do you think it would take for equalization over the ground?

Equilibrium is not reached until the entire system has finished warming. This would take several decades, possibly longer.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Equilibrium is not reached until the entire system has finished warming. This would take several decades, possibly longer.

How long to reach 95% equilibrium?

 

[longview]

Equilibrium is not reached until the entire system has finished warming. This would take several decades, possibly longer.

Consider that the experts have look at this concept for many years.
Estimates range from as few as 6 years (1960's) to Hansen's 60% between 25 to 50 years.
A new measurement of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) | Clive Best
Clive Best's Fig1 looks like a GISS run has 87% in about 30 years
Recent papers place the latency time at 10.1 years.
For the sake of discussion, lets us the GISS graph at 87% at 30 years.
So 30 years ago the CO2-eq level was 414 ppm,
((5.35 X ln(414/280) X.3)X .87)=.55C, from only 30 year old forcing .
This assumes a ECS value of 4.4C, but ECS is likely lower, and Hansen said the
lower the ECS value, the faster the equalization time.
In addition the 20 year time would include ~75% of the forcing warming that happened between 1989 and 1999,
so an additional .07 C.
There was also some natural warming that has occurred since the 1880's
No matter how you slice it, there is simply not much room for any of the predicted amplified feedbacks!

 

[Threegoofs]

Consider that the experts have look at this concept for many years.
Estimates range from as few as 6 years (1960's) to Hansen's 60% between 25 to 50 years.
A new measurement of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) | Clive Best
Clive Best's Fig1 looks like a GISS run has 87% in about 30 years
Recent papers place the latency time at 10.1 years.
For the sake of discussion, lets us the GISS graph at 87% at 30 years.
So 30 years ago the CO2-eq level was 414 ppm,
((5.35 X ln(414/280) X.3)X .87)=.55C, from only 30 year old forcing .
This assumes a ECS value of 4.4C, but ECS is likely lower, and Hansen said the
lower the ECS value, the faster the equalization time.
In addition the 20 year time would include ~75% of the forcing warming that happened between 1989 and 1999,
so an additional .07 C.
There was also some natural warming that has occurred since the 1880's
No matter how you slice it, there is simply not much room for any of the predicted amplified feedbacks!

Have you ever wondered why not one scientist who actually studies this for a living hasn’t come upon this critical information?