Australian Politics Forum - Climate Change is back on

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #210 - Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:09am

MOTR wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:00am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

Absolute rubbish, progs. Your premises are absolutely wrong. Where is your evidence.

Evidence of logic Grin

ok

Where is your evidence that long wave radiation can't warm the oceans. That's one of your premises.

No, I said IF you believe a penetration of less than a human hair for co2 back radition (mind you verse a penetration of metres for short wave "sun" radiation), then even if we go with that, then the atmosphere being flat in temps, means the back raditation is going to be flat, hence there should be a trend change as there has been with the atmosphere. But according to you, there is no trend change.

Explain your understanding of the link between back radiation and atmospheric temperatures.

I know you love to play these games, but surely by now you know you dont suck me into them. You have an issue, state it.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #211 - Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:14am

Maqqa wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:49pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:57pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:48pm:

Rabbitoh isn't the least bit crazy. He is just expecting an answer to a straight forward question. How could the warming have paused when the evidence clearly tells us otherwise.

Yes but my statements are on empirical data of the atmospheric temperature data. 0.5 does equal 0.5. No amount of complaining that some ice somewhere is melting, is going to change that.

If he wants the question answered, then he should do as I said earlier. I am not going to entertain rabbits wishful thinking.

Of course 0.5 equals 0.5. What's your point.

Interesting the 0.5 usage here

Has anyone looked at the accepted definition of El Nino?

Quote:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensofaq.shtm...

NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, which is part of the National Weather Service, declares the onset of an El Niño episode when the 3-month average sea-surface temperature departure exceeds 0.5oC in the east-central equatorial Pacific

There are numerous methods used to define an El Niño. There are also different methods used to classify the strength of an El Niño. Is this leading anywhere, Maqqa.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #212 - Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:16am

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:09am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:00am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

Absolute rubbish, progs. Your premises are absolutely wrong. Where is your evidence.

Evidence of logic Grin

ok

Where is your evidence that long wave radiation can't warm the oceans. That's one of your premises.

No, I said IF you believe a penetration of less than a human hair for co2 back radition (mind you verse a penetration of metres for short wave "sun" radiation), then even if we go with that, then the atmosphere being flat in temps, means the back raditation is going to be flat, hence there should be a trend change as there has been with the atmosphere. But according to you, there is no trend change.

Explain your understanding of the link between back radiation and atmospheric temperatures.

I know you love to play these games, but surely by now you know you dont suck me into them. You have an issue, state it.

You seem to be claiming a direct link between atmospheric temperatures and back radiation. You seem to be saying that the amount of back radiation is determined by atmospheric temperatures. I want you to explain what you mean so I can be sure what you are arguing.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #213 - Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:20am

MOTR wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:16am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:09am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:00am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

Absolute rubbish, progs. Your premises are absolutely wrong. Where is your evidence.

Evidence of logic Grin

ok

Where is your evidence that long wave radiation can't warm the oceans. That's one of your premises.

No, I said IF you believe a penetration of less than a human hair for co2 back radition (mind you verse a penetration of metres for short wave "sun" radiation), then even if we go with that, then the atmosphere being flat in temps, means the back raditation is going to be flat, hence there should be a trend change as there has been with the atmosphere. But according to you, there is no trend change.

Explain your understanding of the link between back radiation and atmospheric temperatures.

I know you love to play these games, but surely by now you know you dont suck me into them. You have an issue, state it.

You seem to be claiming a direct link between atmospheric temperatures and back radiation. You seem to be saying that the amount of back radiation is determined by atmospheric temperatures. I want you to explain what you mean so I can be sure what you are arguing.

Well seeing as it is you who are a bit vague, then maybe you should explain your understanding of atmospheric temps vs(the link between) back radiation.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Climate Change is back on Reply #214 - Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:22am Well on a cool cloudy day there is actually more back radiation.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #215 - Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:25am

MOTR wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:22am:

Well on a cool cloudy day there is actually more back radiation.

I am talking atmosphere, not surface temps. I like to give the official answer if you dont mind.

Effect on Surface Temperature
The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.

Just an addition to complete what I was taliking about:
If the surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature. Then it goes without saying, that the oceans are going to respond similarly to the atmosphere. You say there is no trend change for the ocean temps from less than a human hair penetration from the atmospheric temps, but the surface has responded by being flat.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:35am by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #216 - Mar 11^th, 2013 at 1:01am

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:25am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:22am:

Well on a cool cloudy day there is actually more back radiation.

I am talking atmosphere, not surface temps. I like to give the official answer if you dont mind.

Effect on Surface Temperature
The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.

Just an addition to complete what I was taliking about:
If the surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature. Then it goes without saying, that the oceans are going to respond similarly to the atmosphere. You say there is no trend change for the ocean temps from less than a human hair penetration from the atmospheric temps, but the surface has responded by being flat.

You are not making sense, progs. Try explaining it another way.

Just so we can be clear “back-radiation” is the the radiation emitted by the atmosphere which is incident on the earth’s surface. It is also more correctly known as downward longwave radiation – or DLR. The argument is that greater concentrations of GHGs increases DLR, which warms the top of the cool skin layer of the ocean. A reduction in the temperature gradient of the cool skin layer of the ocean (that is the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the layer) reduces the heat flowing out of the ocean, allowing more heat to accumulate in our oceans.

I don't get what you mean by, "You say there is no trend change for the ocean temps from less than a human hair penetration from the atmospheric temps."

Can you try and say this another way. I certainly believe there is a trend change in ocean temps, even in the range from 0-700m.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #217 - Mar 11^th, 2013 at 11:47pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:39pm:

Its not an answer (to what rabbit wants) because it isnt a question in relation to anything I said.

So - are you now saying that you agree that the article by David Rose in the Daily Mail was complete nonsense.

You understand that the notion that global warming has "paused " for 17 years is complete nonsense.

Is this correct?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #218 - Mar 11^th, 2013 at 11:54pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:48pm:

Rabbitoh isn't the least bit crazy. He is just expecting an answer to a straight forward question. How could the warming have paused when the evidence clearly tells us otherwise.

Yes but my statements are on empirical data of the atmospheric temperature data. 0.5 does equal 0.5. No amount of complaining that some ice somewhere is melting, is going to change that.

If he wants the question answered, then he should do as I said earlier. I am not going to entertain rabbits wishful thinking.

WTF os this " 0.5 does equal 0.5" you keep going on about?!?!?

WTF is "0.5"

0.5 of what? What units?

Can you explain?

Or is just an other sad way that you try to escape from answering questions?

You have previously parrotted stuff by David Rose suggesting that global warming has "paused"

Yet - when asked to explain how global warming could have "paused" when ice continues to melt, sea levels continue to rise, and and evrey single on of the past 27 years has has an average surface temperature greater than the long term average - you run away like a little girl and tell lies like "I hava already answered that"

You haven't already answered that at all - you liar.

Who do you think you are fooling?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #219 - Mar 11^th, 2013 at 11:58pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

Absolute rubbish, progs. Your premises are absolutely wrong. Where is your evidence.

Evidence of logic Grin

ok

Where is your evidence that long wave radiation can't warm the oceans. That's one of your premises.

No, I said IF you believe a penetration of less than a human hair for co2 back radition (mind you verse a penetration of metres for short wave "sun" radiation), then even if we go with that, then the atmosphere being flat in temps, means the back raditation is going to be flat, hence there should be a trend change as there has been with the atmosphere. But according to you, there is no trend change.

MOTR asked you a question.

Why don't you answer it?

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #220 - Mar 12^th, 2013 at 5:49pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 11:58pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

Absolute rubbish, progs. Your premises are absolutely wrong. Where is your evidence.

Evidence of logic Grin

ok

Where is your evidence that long wave radiation can't warm the oceans. That's one of your premises.

No, I said IF you believe a penetration of less than a human hair for co2 back radition (mind you verse a penetration of metres for short wave "sun" radiation), then even if we go with that, then the atmosphere being flat in temps, means the back raditation is going to be flat, hence there should be a trend change as there has been with the atmosphere. But according to you, there is no trend change.

MOTR asked you a question.

Why don't you answer it?

because YOU dont understand the answers. METs temperature graphs show no increase in temperature over the last 16 years to the extent that 1996 and 2012 have IDENTICAL temperatures and the variation in the intervening years is statistically nonexistent. but you dont accept that because it doesnt fit into your religious beliefs.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #221 - Mar 12^th, 2013 at 11:08pm

Looking at the following graph from the IPCC of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3.

They are claiming the heat is all going to the water with 0.2% going into Antarctic Ice and Greenland Ice

Why am I focusing on this and not Arctic ice?

Because I want to look at the alarmists' cries on rising sea levels due climate change

We know that melting Arctic ice won't change sea levels because it's sea water but melting Antarctic and Greenland ice will increase sea water because it's freshwater.

My question is - does this 0.2% melt the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

The answer "seems" to be no because the IPCC also said that contribution of sea rises from melting Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets is 0.21mm (+/- 0.35mm error)

Personal attacks aside - find a ruler.

Look at 1mm

Then look at how much 21% of that 1mm is

This is before considering that there's a 0.35mm error

If this is the case - why are we even talking about climate change refugee?

Even if the sea level rise by 1m - that's 100cm - that's 1,000mm

According to the IPCC the sea rise is 0.21mm ie 4,761 years

Back to top

GW_Components_1024.jpg (75 KB | 32 )

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Climate Change is back on Reply #222 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:48am You are innumerate, Maqqa. Sometimes there is so much wrongness in a post that it's just better to shudder and walk away.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #223 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 10:20pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 11:58pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

Absolute rubbish, progs. Your premises are absolutely wrong. Where is your evidence.

Evidence of logic Grin

ok

Where is your evidence that long wave radiation can't warm the oceans. That's one of your premises.

No, I said IF you believe a penetration of less than a human hair for co2 back radition (mind you verse a penetration of metres for short wave "sun" radiation), then even if we go with that, then the atmosphere being flat in temps, means the back raditation is going to be flat, hence there should be a trend change as there has been with the atmosphere. But according to you, there is no trend change.

MOTR asked you a question.

Why don't you answer it?

because YOU dont understand the answers. METs temperature graphs show no increase in temperature over the last 16 years to the extent that 1996 and 2012 have IDENTICAL temperatures and the variation in the intervening years is statistically nonexistent. but you dont accept that because it doesnt fit into your religious beliefs.

Remember that fool who denied the 17 year pause in warming and kept asking 'but if the earth isnt warming how come '.....

Arctic extent largest since 2005

Antartic extent larger than 1979 average by a huge amount

Global warming. Yeh right.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Climate Change is back on Reply #224 - Mar 14^th, 2013 at 1:36am http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/03/Figure3.png Look at the trend, progs. You are being played for a fool.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Mar 14^th, 2013 at 1:56am by MOTR » Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged