NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18 Read Newsmax: Earth Cooled by Half a

But what I'm still missing is why the hell anyone should care about the temperature of the entire mass of the Earth when we and our food can only live in a minuscule part of it.

 

Good for them. That line probably convinces a lot of people to vote to give them lots of tax dollars even though it makes no sense scientifically.

Like, what do they mean when they say 'biosphere', anywhere there's life? There's life in one form or another on the planet six or seven miles both above and below sea level. There's no agreement as to how much of that is heated.

If we say the story is all 15 miles then let's try and figure out how that much mass can be heated up and not have one single calorie of heat move across 197 million square miles of contact space down below. We know that if we heat up one side of a rock the other side gets hot too. Heating just the biosphere defies all scientific understanding.

AGW advocates say that 0.3 petaWatts of heat has heated the earth a degree in the past century. That's impossible because with only that much heat it would take 100,000 years to heat the earth one degree.

Anyone see what's happening here? I'm trying to justify AGW and I'm getting nowhere. Defending the AGW hypothesis is the job of those that believe it so why are we not hearing from them?

 

No we are saying you are misapplying the science in hilariously ridiculous ways

 

Why dont you READ the IPCC and see what it actually says instead of creating ridiculous strawmen

Oh! I know - because strawmen are easier to debate than the real science!!!

 

The atmosphere has warmed about 1.0C. The atmosphere weighs 5e18 kg and has a specific heat capacity of 1.0 kj/kgC. That means it only takes 5e18 kj to warm it by 1.0C. And over a 60 year period that averages out to only 3 TW of power required to perform the heating. That is an incredibly small fraction of the total energy received by the Sun. So even a small imbalance in the solar radiation budget can have a huge impact.

 

You're oversimplifying the problem.

If we measure the temp along any given Earth radius, we expect a generally negative temp gradient from the surface down - until we get close enough to the mantle that the gradient flips positive. So if we were to sprinkle nuclear reactors all over the ocean floor sufficient to raise average ocean temps 1° C, that inflection point would shift towards the surface, but we shouldn't expect a temp increase at the center of the Earth.

 

Intelligent people then would explain a correct application of science in a correct way, but intelligence of climate scientists is stuck somewhere on a level of kindergarten and they publish most primitive cartoons as a proof and an argument.

 

1. Not true about the gradient, it does not reverse in Antarctica.

2. Not true about the gradient, it does not reverse in winter.

3. Not true about heating, the Sun cannot heat atmosphere only without heating ground and oceans, and even cave men could see that.

4. Not true about oversimplification, a quick search that that 3-4 meters of water from the surface down of stand still oceans have the same specific heat capacity as all atmosphere; and oceans do not stand still.

5. Not true picture of the material world around you: there are not 2 but 3 Temperatures - T1 of the Sun, T2 of the Earth and T3 of the infinite in mass Universe, where T3, the Elephant in the room, cannot be seen by NASA, NAS, IPCC, all institutions of higher learning, 171 academy of sciences and you, due to blindness coming from 16 years of brainwashing – 12 in schools and 4 in colleges.

6. The right picture is: For all time of its existence the Earth has been as warming getting energy from the Sun on the day side as it has been cooling radiating energy to the Universe on the night side (if not to take in the consideration that The Sun and the core of the Earth have been cooling while the Universe has not been warming due to its infinite mass and size. Re: https://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_a_universal_tendency.html)

7. The idea that changing the Earth atmosphere to 100% CO2 can even slightly change either of the 3 Ts is directly telling about total illiteracy and blindness of the over whelming majorities of the scientific community and anyone who can seriously entertain such an idea as anything more than a total hoax.

 

Just to clarify...the specific heat capacity of sea water is close to 4 kj/kg (slightly less than pure water due to the salinity) and that of the atmosphere is close to 1 kj/kg. So the specific heat capacity of the ocean is about 4x that of the atmosphere. However, water is far more dense so it only takes the first few meters of the ocean to match the entire atmosphere in terms of the total heat capacity. I think we're on the same page here.

In regards to T3 we do know the temperature of the cosmic microwave background. It was first measured by Penzias and Wilson in the 1960's. There have been several high precision measurements since then including but not limited to COBE, WMAP, and Planck

If the Earth had no atmosphere then the equilibrium of temperature achieved from ~1365 W/m^2 of solar radiation is about -18C using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Note that Earth's own radioactive production of heat is negligible relative to the solar radiation so it can be ignored. There would, of course, be a much larger diurnal range of temperatures though. Also consider that the spread between an idealized black-body and actual observations are +33K for Earth and only +6K for Mars. Comparisons of Venus and Mercury are even more astonishing with Venus being +503K and Mercury being only +3K. It's pretty obvious which planets have atmospheres that cause them to deviate considerably from ideaized black-body emitters.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/predictedplanetarytemperatures.html

Simple observation tells us that you are completely wrong. And the arrogance of your claim that you're somehow smarter than the entire world's physicists tells me you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias. But, let's go back to your three temperatures for a minute. No one disagrees that if the temperature of your furnace (say T1) and the temperature of the outside (say T3) are constant then the temperature of the inside of your home (say T2) will be higher if there's more insulation. It's the same concept with Earth. The more insulation (atmospheric greenhouse gases) the Earth has the warmer it will be even if T1 and T3 are held constant.

 

Again. Why not read the source? It is obvious the poster had no idea of the actual science

 

A pleasure to read

Thank you

 

I think I cannot explain you way of an intelligent conversation. Please read the sources : https://www.google.com/search?q=why...ome..69i57.96018j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Just to clarify… I demonstrated that expatpanama is right asking the simple question “what is that what is warming’’ so he could calculate how much the Sun can warm that what is warming and

how scientists including you always try to weasel their way out of this simple question and calculations, particularly in your post where you gave expatpanama an account of only atmosphere warming, like the Sun does not warm the land in ocean in depth.

And now you trying to dance away from these facts.

Right or wrong you have not addressed none of my words you quoted:

_Inquisitor_ said:

5. Not true picture of the material world around you: there are not 2 but 3 Temperatures - T1 of the Sun, T2 of the Earth and T3 of the infinite in mass Universe, where T3, the Elephant in the room, cannot be seen by NASA, NAS, IPCC, all institutions of higher learning, 171 academy of sciences and you, due to blindness coming from 16 years of brainwashing – 12 in schools and 4 in colleges.

But you have tried to create an impression that you did.

You should be named a champion of the art of deception and deflection, if you were not any different from any other overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

Now let us see who does have a mental disorder:

You start from double fallacy, from an appeal to authority and from a false appeal because you post no reference to a single physicist, while answering my reference to the Lord of Thermodynamics, and while no self-respecting physicist vote on a subject of physics, and while you no reference to "entire world's physicists".

Then you are placing the sun inside the Earth and insulating the Earth and saying – "See"?


The infrared heater is outside the Earth and heats it only during the day while the night side is cooled by the dead cold Cosmos.

If the insulation of the earth is increased the earth will be LESS heated by the heater, but then, being less warm, it will loose less heat to the Cosmos.

insulation (atmospheric greenhouse gases) cannot heat or cool anything: insulate a kettle in miles of wool - the water in it will not boil.



First overwhelming majorities of the scientific community claim that something is dangerously warming, but they give all different answers to the simplest "question what is that what is warming",

then they say that the Sun warms up only atmosphere without warming the land and the oceans to the depth,

then that the Sun warms up atmosphere during the night,

and the earth does not cool during the night and has no connection to the infinite dead cold Cosmos,

and then that the Sun heats up the earth from under atmosphere.

I don’t think one can find a qualified physicist who would not say that overwhelming majorities of the scientific community not only arrogant and dumb as a bag of rock, but totally insane.

You are facing physics 101, my friend.

 

This is your biggest misunderstanding. The incoming radiation and outgoing radiation aren't the same. The CO2 molecule is more transparent to photons with higher frequency and is more opaque to photons of lower frequency. This necessarily means the incoming shortwave radiation is mostly allowed to pass through while more of the outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed. Your hero Lord Kelvin and thermodynamics in general are simply incapable of explaining this behavior by themselves. This is a behavior that requires quantum mechanics to fully explain.

 

I posted this simple thing before:

May be just a youtube but from reliable sources.

 

Since everything else stand as true in my post: and let me repeat a part what is standing as true:

First overwhelming majorities of the scientific community claim that something is dangerously warming, but they give all different answers to the simplest "question what is that what is warming",

then they say that the Sun warms up only atmosphere without warming the land and the oceans to the depth,

then that the Sun warms up atmosphere during the night,

and the earth does not cool during the night and has no connection to the infinite dead cold Cosmos,

and then that the Sun heats up the earth from under atmosphere.

I don’t think one can find a qualified physicist who would not say that overwhelming majorities of the scientific community not only arrogant and dumb as a bag of rock, but totally insane.

You are facing physics 101, my friend.

Physics 101 my friend:

In physics it does not matter how good your theory sounds and how many people like the sound,

In physics you have to demonstrate,

you have to demonstrate that CO2 absorbs more heat from the Sun during the day than it emits to the dead cold Cosmos during the night.

And if you cannot understand that if you can demonstrate that you have made if not the most important discoveries of all times, but one of the most discoveries of all times, I don't know how I can help you.

Please go ahead and demonstrate, I guarantee you will be a billionaire overnight.

I will rise $billion, $10billions overnight to buy the right for the patent of your machine from you.

 

So happy to see you my sunshine.

Read the above.

How do you think you and I would spend all those $trillions, my darling?

We would be richer than Microsoft, Apple and Amazon combined.

 

The entire biosphere is warming.

That's not true at all. In fact, the land, atmosphere, and latent heat of fusion of ice melt together account for only 10% of the warming. The remaining 90% of heat is stored in the ocean. In fact, there is so much excess heat in the ocean that even if the biosphere went back to a net zero imbalance of solar radiation the atmosphere would continue to warm for another 30 years or so as the heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere works to achieve a new equilibrium. Climate scientists are absolutely aware of this. And they most definitely do not support your statement above.

Show me where the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, or any reputable organization has made any of these claims.

Unbelievable.

I and many others have given you multiple links to the EM absorption spectrum of CO2. We've given you links that explain in detail how CO2 behaves differently depending on the frequency/wavelength of the radiation and why quantum mechanics is required to fully understand the behavior. We've given you links to laboratory experiments showing the effect. It never does any good. You reject them out-of-hand before you've even read them. You are the quintessential example of a science denier.

 

Dana got the numbers for that graph from another study that said they got their numbers from this NOAA site that's got a bunch of compilations/revisions/adjustments of original temperature and heat content measurements. None of them say how much heat is in the ocean. What they're paid to do is 'prove' global warming by coming up w/ numbers consistent w/ the party line.

Nobody is willing to say how much heat is in the ocean and nobody is willing to say what the temperature of the earth's "biosphere" is. NASA.gov will tell you the temperature of the surface of the sun (10,000 degrees Fahrenheit) but not the surface of the earth.

 

Any statement of Solar Corona/Surface Temperature is inherently and estimation and compilation of various data sets whereas the temperatures required to designate Earth ocean temperatures will vary dramatically by depth and location, season to season but you seem to expect one number. A general consensus and estimate indicates a temperature increase but oceans warm far slower than atmosphere.
"Global warming caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C). This warming has occurred from the surface to a depth of about 2,300 feet (700 meters), where most marine life thrives."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critical-issues-sea-temperature-rise/

 

You can find 3-dimensional oceanic temperature data (not anomalies) here. This is just one example. http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Gridded_fields.html

You can find 3-dimensional atmospheric temperature data (not anomalies) here. This is just one example. https://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds083.2/

 

Right, "3-dimensional atmospheric temperature data". NASA.gov can tell you that the average surface temperature of Titan is 179C, but they won't tell you the average surface temperature of earth. The could but they won't. What they post is --

--because it apparently makes left wingers vote for tax hikes.

 

it never gets cold here in winter, cause it's hot here right now... republican logic

no one ever said there would be no fluctuations in the data, get real folks

for all we know in the future we prevent the next ice age
or a solar storm blows away some of our atmosphere taking the gasses man put up there with it, many variables, all we can see is trends

 

If there is man-made global warming then maybe we are offsetting a new Ice Age

Which is much more challenging than global warming

 

Well, yes they do. They just don't do so via the NASA GISS dataset. GISS is not designed for a temperature scale baselined at absolute zero (K) or the freezing point of water (C). It is designed for a temperature scale baselined at the 1951-1980 average. As already discussed there are several reasons for doing it this with the main reason being that it cancels out systematic biases keeps the dataset homogenous as new observations from the past are still being added to it today. If you want something specifically published by NASA that has temperatures in Kelvin then consider MERRA. It too has a complete 3D representation of the atmosphere with units in K baselined at absolute zero instead of the 1951-1980 like what GISS uses. It also has the other properties of the atmosphere including dewpoints, wind vectors, geopotential heights, equivalent potential temperatures, and much more. So instead of mocking NASA why not just look at the data they have to offer. If you don't like NASA or think they've messed something up then move to the CFSR, FNL, ERA, JRA, or the other multitude of datasets that are out there.