Climate change: A cooling consensus

Since temperatures haven't actually been flat over the past 15 years, it turns out that the models are fine. Meanwhile, I notice that you have surrendered on the false "millionaire" claim.

Wrong again, bucko. They're right there. It just that deniers prefer not to look. Looking (at anything) is definitely not a denier forte.

So then you agree that wist43 was wrong when he said "15 to 17 years"? Looks like the deniers are turning on each other. But just to prove you wrong yet again, the regression slope for 1998-2012 is +.004 (positive) for HADCRUT4, and +.006 (positive) for GISS. So the extra year doesn't change anything. Which I said before. And which you ignored.

And how did they do that, Roy? Did they call up 50,000 observers around the globe and bribe them all? Did they slip a little extra moolah into the pay envelopes of 5,000 ship captains so they would report wrong sea surface temperatures? I'm just curious how the mind of a conspiracy theorist works, so please enlighten us all.

And I'm especially keen on learning who you have to bribe to make the Arctic Ocean melt. And who you have to bribe to make the sea level rise. 'Cause I know a lot of people who would gladly double those bribes to reverse that.

Classic denierism in a nutshell: faced with mathematical proof that temperatures are actually rising, Roy just shrugs and says "not really". Day is night. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. 2013 is 1984.

That's because you didn't actually look, Roy. But hey, you're a denier, so I repeat myself. If you had actually checked the data in the link, you would have found that mri_cgm2_3_2a (that's MRI, Meteorological Research Institute of Japan, and their CGM climate model, version 2.3.2a) has a regression slope of +0.00575 K/yr for the period 1998-2012, which is actually lower than the regression slope for GISS during the same period. Looks like you've been lied to again.

And if you cherry-pick the starting and ending dates for the models, like you do for the observations, you could have seen even lower slopes in the model runs. But that would require you to actually look at the data. Which deniers never do.

 

So we ignore direct observations by the astronomical community?

The only influence the sun has on Earth aside from energy is gravity. So feel free to invent a whole new type of science to explain how the sun affects Earth's albedo

You have done nothing other than repeat the statement to actually show what is going on

Now you have argued yourself in a complete circle. So if the energy from the sun does not influence temperatures on Earth why are you arguing sunspot cycles affect Earth's climate?

 

Take a pot.

Fill it with water.

Put it on a stove.

Turn it to high.

Measure the temperature over the first minute.

Now turn the stove to 7.

Measure the temperature over the next minute.

Now explain the divergence between the temperature of the pot of water and the stove over the last minute.

This is what you get for listining to those Nazi worshiping boobs over at SS.

 

You should study history. The NAS was founded to dupe the public and still does.

 

You forgot the most important step, there, Dr. Science.
You forgot to measure the actual energy going into the pot.

So either you don't understand the difference between energy transfer rate and heat content; or you're deliberately trying to confuse the two.

 

The science is contradictory

The models the hypothesis is built on have failed

And finally and most importantly the warming our governments have so ruthlessly programmed us to fear has stopped.

Were it not for the politics of those who continue to ram their worldview down our throats. Emptying our pockets by trying to still use their failed hypothesis as their ongoing conduit for doing so. We would have stopped talking about this a very long time ago. Clearly there are still far too many vested interests riding on this for it to be allowed to die a quick death. Expect your wallets to keep lightening for some time yet. Here in Britain as our green taxation keeps rising year on year ours certainly will !

 

"Inconclusive."

True.

Actually, even more importantly, warming would have been a GOOD thing.

 

The energy going into the pot is one minute on high and one minute on 7.

Or did you forget what energy is?

power x time

Oh thats right I forgot who I was dealing with. You never knew.

 

Nope. It's you, Dr. Science who forgot what energy is. Energy is measured in Watt-hours, not "high" and not "7".

Get back to me when you've got actual data.

 

All that's impressive here is how badly many of the models "predict" known data from the 20th century.

In any case, you still haven't addressed the real issue (hint: you won't): name ANY climate model published before 2000 that predicts BOTH the rapid CO2-based warming in the 21st century that we are told we must prevent at all costs AND the flat temperatures seen since 1998. Models that predict flat temperatures 1998-2013 but NOT rapid warming as CO2 rises through the 21st century don't rescue CO2-based AGW theory, sorry.

I'm still waiting.

 

Given how closely solar activity mirrors the paleoclimatic temperature record over the last millenium it has to be the prime candidate for todays warming surely ? Once you ignore all the AGW smoke and mirrors thats pretty much common sense really



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

 

Any weather service in the world would be busting their buttons with pride to predict temperatures to within half a degree.

Hint: I already have, but you missed it. Model mri_cgcm2_3_2a, linked in a previous post, shows a lower regression slope 1998-2012 than GISStemp for that same period, and it also shows global temperatures at the end of this century to be 2.9°C above the 1900-1959 mean. You lose, bucko.

 

<sigh> Climate vs weather...

No, you haven't.

It's also not from before 2000. It's from 2005, so the post-1998 flat trend was already established. No points for predicting what has already happened, sorry.

ROTFL!! I just proved that you lose, bucko. You still can't name a model that predicted both AGW and the flat temps of 1998-2013 BEFORE the flat trend emerged.

You are so done.

 

There is quite a few conversions done before a pot of water even begins to heat. The electricity must be converted to thermal through the eye of the stove. The eye of the stove starts to get warm, and some of the thermal energy is transferred to the pot. The pot starts becoming warmer, and some of the thermal energy will transfer into the water and cause convection. We'll skip the issue of materials. IE: Copper is a better conductor than iron.

If you'll notice, the eye can be red hot while the water hasn't even begun to boil yet. Only a portion of the energy of the eye is going to the pot, and only a portion of the energy in the pot is transferring to the water. Where does the rest of it go? Hold your hand in the nearby area and you'll feel it.

The mathematics of heat transfer is a little more advanced than many take. But if you've taken some partial differential equations classes, you should be ok with the following source:
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/DE/TheHeatEquation.aspx
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/DE/SolvingHeatEquation.aspx
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/DE/HeatEqnNonZero.aspx

A less mathy version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer

 

A Wh is just an SI unit of measurement. Units of measurement are arbitrary.

A watt is just one kg x m^2/s^3

With a meter m being a fraction of the earths circumference, which is off by a bit. A second being a fraction of the orbit time of the earth, which is also off a bit. And a kg being 1000 grams with a gram being the mass of one cubic centimeter of water.

See units of measurement are entirely arbitrary. Just something we make up to give an understandable magnitude to physical properties.

Energy can be expressed in any units of power and time. Hp-hr for example.

In the above example the power of the burner is expressed as numbers running from 1 to high. The time is in minutes. The energy is the power times the time.

You shouldn't get into these arguments. They prove you to be a pure pretender.

 

And that has absolutely no relevence to the question at hand. You are just trying to obfuscate the question.

We are cemparing two trendlines and their correlation.

You stated that the earth and sun shouldn't diverge. I gave you a simple example that proves your assertion false.

Yoy can post all the wiki crap you want. I can see right through it. Im an electrical engineer. Im smarter than you especially when it comes to questions like this. So hand waving is not goibg to work.

 

Heat transfer vs thermal equilibrium is the exact explanation of what your attempting to measure. The thermal equilibrium of setting 7 isn't reached within the one min time span of the stove being on setting hi. Heat transfer occurs until thermal equilibrium is reached.

If you want to quantify everything, you'll have to turn to partial differential equations.

 

No kidding it hasnt reached thermal equilibrium that is the hole point. Now apply that to how solar radiation can drop slightly and the earth continues to warm in response to high solar radiation.

 

Well as soon as that radiation changes, be sure to let us know

 

Your childish posts don't help your cause.

 

Well clearly I cant make them too sophisticated. But ya know you could always shut me up by proving the radiation variance, instead of just repeating the claim as a mantra and not showing any actual evidence.

 

See? You have to pretend radiation is the only possible variable, and disallow consideration of albedo, magnetic effects, etc. as well as any combination thereof.

We've posted the evidence: increased solar activity followed by rising global temperature. Solar activity explains the MWP, the LIA, and modern warming. CO2 can't explain either the MWP or the LIA. Solar activity is therefore the objectively superior scientific explanation for long-term global temperature variation.

 

You need to take that up with Windago not me. That poster is the one constantly revisiting solar variance without ever once showing any evidence of it.

And at some point you are going to realize Solar activity does not change the amount of energy reaching Earth from the Sun

 

And at some point you are going to realize you backed the wrong horse.