Climate Hustle

One reviewer said, "it will be heavy on conspiracy theories and seriously lacking actual scientific evidence. And much like the 9/11 conspiracy film Loose Change, it will be a fun and entertaining romp into the land of conspiracy theories, which is always a good place to visit from time-to-time to escape reality (and a lot cheaper and healthier than a quart of whiskey!"

Another says, "a film that devastates the global warming scare" because it profiles politically left-leaning scientists who have reversed their positions from the so-called "consensus" position to declaring themselves climate change skeptics."

I'll let you guess which side of the tree these nuts fell on.

Money talks, the truth suffers.

I'm having a couple of of polar bears over for pizza that night......should be entertaining.

I've never tried seal pizza--no doubt that would be entertaining.

its best when fresh

Their motto: "Seal pizza. Join the club!"

Do you know how to catch a polar bear?

First: Obtain a can of green peas.

Second: Go to an ice outcropping. (Your choice of location/destination.)

Third: Cut a round hole into the ice 10 feet in diameter and 15 feet deep.

Fourth: Open the can of green peas and scatter them in a circle around the hole.

Fifth: Hide and wait for a polar bear to find the hole you created with yummy peas scattered around it.

Last step: When the polar bear bends over to take a pea just kick him in the ice hole.

If you did, be mindful that there claws could decapitate you in one slash! And these white monsters (cousins of the brown bear of Alaska, and evolved from them), just love human flesh, as I am told.

One minute I am hearing about Arctic Sea Ice expansion, the next minute it is all melting, I wish someone would make up my mind. As far as sea levels rising, it is altogether too bad we don't get to pick which islands "go under". I really have nothing against islands or islanders, so if the sea level seems to be rising, just make sure that it is not the natural recession of the island mass itself back down into the tectonic plate.

"The earth does not turn its head on a dime, and will not bow down to man's will now, or ever. The earth does what it will do, in spite of man's best efforts." ----

The links would have been more useful had they indicated changes in atmospheric composition or Planetary Albedo instead of news events.

Do you believe our biosphere is so huge or the activities of man so small and benign as to be ineffectual in altering the thermodynamic state of our relatively very small biosphere?

Are you suggesting that the activities of modern man do not have a significant effect on Planetary Albedo or Atmospheric Composition? Or perhaps that small fractional components would not significantly affect the thermal and/or optical properties of the atmosphere? Or that the results of deforestation are not extensive enough to measurably affect planetary albedo?

Ignored by most in both the politics and science of anthropomorphic causes of climate change is orbital dynamics - specifically the relationship of anomalistic period to tropical period and the orbital perturbations induced by the bary-centric orbits of the planets.

I am in no way suggesting human activity affects orbital dynamics; but I do suggest that it is a variable of considerable importance in the thermodynamic state of our biosphere. This being the case even when Stefan-Boltzman Law dictates that large variations in solar output would be required to significantly change biosphere equilibrium temperature when all other variables remain constant.

In consideration of a bary-centric solar system, the exponential relationship between distance to solar photosphere and solar insolation may also be a significant variable; but it in no way removes the thermodynamic and optical properties of our atmosphere as primary variables in defining biosphere equilibrium temperature as a function of insolation.

I believe the thermodynamic evolution of our planet infers entropic and not cyclic process. I would not expect to see identical conditions in any two separate epochs even if the numerous other variables such as volcanic activity and impacts were factored. Our planet IS evolving thermodynamically, it is entropic, and mankind's activities are altering epochal scale if not evolutionary scale biosphere variables.

Given all of this; I remain confident that atmospheric composition is the single greatest variable in defining epochal biosphere equilibrium temperature with water vapor and not CO2 or methane being the most significant of "greenhouse" components.

In spite of the various protestations about how small the biosphere actually is, the ocean itself is not small, and if the mass of all human activity is set aside it, the ocean wins by large orders of magnitude.

None of my comments or links had anything in particular with your decision to "tee-off" on my post. I pointed out the NASA data precisely as is, directing the reader to their links, and the reader is more than welcome to view anything on the NASA pages related. They appear to take the position that human activities do relate to global climate change. I take a slightly different stance:

If the global mean average sea level is rising linearly as the data suggests, what really is the root-cause? Could it be that we failed to factor in the rise in global water from icy meteors? Could it be that we failed to consider that it is linear while human activity is probably increasing faster than linear? Could it be that something else that the chemists, physicists, and geologists missed (I don't know how) has to do with where measurements were taken and then labeled as "global"? I obviously do not know the answers to these questions, but as someone purportedly with an open mind, I would like to see more data, how the data is assembled and massaged (or not), mainly just some answers to nagging questions.

How am I to believe bulk generalizations that state that the polar ice is gone, when it is a proven fact that in some major areas near Alaska, polar ice has increased dramatically (dramatically is not a quantitative term, but is supposed to mean by a large percentage in this case).

Planetary albedo, as you mentioned, depends upon a number of parameters including dust, moisture, upper atmosphere ice cloud formations, snow coverage, forestation, deforestation, etc., etc. How is it you think I am some sort of fan of deforestation of places like south Brazil, the Amazon, Central Africa, and northern Argentina? I want the jungles to remain in place, especially in Argentina, to keep the German Nazis that live there in miserable, mosquito-infested conditions.

Climate change has become more of a political power grab by Big Government, and if people continue to drink the Kool-Aid, and buy into this drivel, they will usurp all power, and remove all freedoms from citizens the world over. One giant world government, and you will be obsolete, not needed, not allowed to think, speak, eat, crap, or breathe.

I don't mean to "tee off" on your posts but they seem the most detailed and present the clearest points of contention.

"In spite of the various protestations about how small the biosphere actually is, the ocean itself is not small, and if the mass of all human activity is set aside it, the ocean wins by large orders of magnitude." -----

Yes the thermal mass of the oceans is huge when compared to the thermal mass of the atmosphere; and it serves as a significant sink for absorbed insolation. (I had never seen human activity quantified as "mass" before.) But the combined thermal mass of the oceans and atmosphere is some small percentage of the total thermal mass of our planet.

The thermal and optical properties of the atmosphere play a more significant role in planetary emissivity which defines equilibrium temperature of the biosphere where insolation rate remains constant.

The IR signature of the planets disk from space would be a reliable indication of what's happening in terms of equilibrium temperature. I do not know whether the sensors are accurate enough to detail small fractional degree changes but since the emitted radiation increases as the 4^th power of absolute temperature then I would suspect reliable data has been available for some number of decades in this regard. The problem here is that a few decades of data may be spoofed by anomalistic events; it simply is not a long enough time scale.

In reference to increasing ocean surface height you presented some rational and some not so rational variables.

Your comments regarding the political motivations of the International Mafioso Nation States attempting to usurp further power is probably not far from the truth; but it detracts from the debate of if and how the climate is changing.

Your reference to ice mass just goes to show how diverse the data is.

I am as guilty as the next guy in choosing data to support my interpretations

I guess if you have over 37 deg Celsius we can proceed with the discussion about temperature and biosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere

Do we include soil temperature in our calculations now?

Did you check what affects the Albedo? Do you even know what it is or means?

Is deforestation by itself nothing we can bring up as negative? Do we need to quote an albedo effect?

there is no sea ice as of 2015! Al Gore said so in his Chicken Little movie..with his advice I suggest heavily investing in Icebreaker manufacturing

Yes, I would. But aren't polar bears so cute, and cuddly in appearance? I think they should stick to Cola commercials, and leave the heavy lifting of the polar ice caps to real men.

if I had to be in the water at the same time with a hungry polar bear or a great white I'd take the shark( hopefully Jaws would still be digesting a movie critic)

Lyn gives this movie.....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IA0E-8tveJc

Does albedo impact bio-spheric equilibrium temperature?

Does composition impact atmospheric opacity?

Does human activity affect planetary albedo?

Does human activity affect atmospheric composition?

If human activity affects either planetary albedo or atmospheric composition then a reasonable conclusion can be made that human activity has some impact on climate.

Carbon Credits: A feel good financial instrument that can be used in speculative finance.

Look at this: and tell me, "if human activity affects either planetary albedo or atmospheric composition".

Yes....I can see clearly that having a Global Warming/Climate Change bias on scientific data affects one's ability to see facts clearly. That's what that hazy, blurry picture very clearly shows.......

The picture is real, unlike your perverted concept of reality.

a picture of fog proves nothing

You prove my point eloquently!

Ummmm - OK.

Let's work on that.

I think 'us' would be correct as he used the word: "affect" correctly:

http://grammarist.com/usage/affect-effect/

Here is a simple example of both being used to say basically the same thing:

Does human activity affect the climate?

What is the effect of human activity on the climate?

One is a noun and one is a verb.

No, he did not, and neither did you. (Although the first part of your analysis was largely correct.)

I have not been affected by the effect of this debate....perhaps the effect was subtle and non-sequitur, or perhaps I was effected by the affect by preexisting inflexions...I cannot say one way, or the other...

I hope that infection isn't contagious...

Even worse would be a contagious inflexion affecting the entire global village. My, my, another Sigmoid curve bites the dust, and the cockroaches can take over.

Is that a quote from Alice in Wonderland? Reminds me of "Mad Hatter" for some reason, but there again, I have brain damage.

You obviously have been affected by the infection effect.

Incomplete set of definitions, although it was the most important one.

What do you think is wrong with it and what should he have said?

Also can you amplify "..........the psychologically technical usages."? That's a new one on me!

I aint gonna be able to keep up with this

Don't worry, be happy.

I am yet to ask again why you call out on the biospheric temperature?

You include at minimum surface soil which was never part of any scientific research to be used in the warming evaluation of Earth. By definition the biosphere is more and different than what we define in the climate systems.

You are part of the Biosphere. Get your terms right.

And what the heck is a bio-spheric equilibrium temperature.

"Do we include soil temperature in our calculations now?" - Since soil temperature would affect both the rate at which thermal energy is re-radiated as well as convective rates it would seem reasonable to include it as a variable in climate.

"Did you check what affects the Albedo? Do you even know what it is or means?" -- Yes I know what Albedo is and am familiar with the major variables.

"By definition the biosphere is more and different than what we define in the climate systems. You are part of the Biosphere. Get your terms right." - I do my best -- really I do.

"And what the heck is a bio-spheric equilibrium temperature." - Please see below.

When we refer to "Climate Change", what we are considering are the far-reaching effects a small change in our planet's "Equilibrium Temperature" has on global climate.

When I use the term "Equilibrium Temperature" I am referring to the temperature at which energy input from all sources equals the energy re-radiated to space. (See - "Heat Balance")

The rate at which earth "radiates" energy back out into space increases exponentially as that equilibrium temperature.

Here is an example that may help in understanding "equilibrium temperature.

Imagine a small round glass marble in a complete vacuum. Also inside the vacuum, but not touching the marble, is a light. When the light is turned on at constant power the marble will warm to a temperature that depends on the intensity of the light.

As the marble's temperature begins to rise it begins to radiate energy back out into the vacuum at an exponential rate relative to its temperature. After some time it will be emitting radiation back into the vacuum at the same rate it is absorbing it and will stop increasing in temperature. It is now at the "Equilibrium Temperature." Equilibrium Temperature is the temperature at which the marble is radiating energy at the same rate it is receiving it.

The marble cannot give off energy through conduction or convection because it is in a vacuum. The only way that it can emit energy is through radiation. The frequency and intensity of that radiation is dependent upon its temperature.

In the case of a marble that is a perfect "black body radiator," the energy input to the marble must increase 16 fold to double the "equilibrium temperature." Although the Earth is not a "black body radiator", it does "radiate" energy at an exponential rate relative to its temperature. It requires very significant increases in energy input to raise the temperature of our biosphere, unless of course, the thermal and optical properties of the atmosphere are altered through a variation in composition.

An increasing Equilibrium Temperature, because of its effect on the Equatorial-Polar Thermal Gradient and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, will significantly influence global climate.

The Equatorial - Polar Thermal Gradient is the rate at which the average temperature changes from the equatorial regions to the Polar Regions. It is caused by the different amount of sun energy absorbed by the Equatorial and Polar Regions because of the differing reflectivity and sun angle.

The polar ice caps are very good reflectors of Sun energy. As the area of the ice sheets decrease because of an increasing Equilibrium Temperature, the newly exposed land and ocean area, along with the increased water vapor in the atmosphere, absorbs and capacitates more sun energy, increasing polar temperature, and decreasing the average rate at which the temperature changes between the equatorial and polar regions.

This Equatorial-Polar Gradient has significant influence on global climate because it is this gradient that powers the transfer of thermal energy from the high solar input equatorial latitudes towards the polar latitudes, which receive much less solar input.

The thermodynamic force that is generated by this gradient powers the oceanic conveyor process, and in combination with earth's rotation, the atmospheric convection process. A huge amount of thermal energy is transferred from the equatorial to the middle and polar latitudes through these two processes.

In the case of thermal transfer due to atmospheric convection, much of the thermal energy is carried north and south away from the equatorial latitudes towards the polar latitudes in the form of water phase energy. Where each gram of water evaporated at the equatorial latitudes and later condensed as precipitation transfers 540 calories of thermal energy from its place of evaporation to the place of condensation, one additional calorie for each gram per degree centigrade as it cools, and another 80 calories if it phases from the liquid state to the solid state(ice/snow). As can be seen, water vapor is a HUGE thermal reservoir in our atmosphere.

Water vapor also has significant effect on the thermal conductivity and infrared opacity of the atmosphere. The equilibrium temperature of the planet determines the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Globally, the amount of water vapor increases exponentially as equilibrium temperature.

Water Vapor, as a "greenhouse gas," absorbs more re-radiated infrared energy from earth's surface than all other "greenhouse gasses" combined.

The reason for this is that water vapor absorbs in the infrared bandwidth, its specific heat is quite high, and there is so much more of it in the atmosphere.

In the case of possible "thermal runaway", it will be water vapor and not carbon dioxide that drives it. Carbon Dioxide and the other more familiar greenhouse gases may tip a delicate balance; but it will be the exponential relationship between temperature and average atmospheric saturation that causes the "runaway."

soil moisture is now monitored as of Jan 2015. heat escaping the atmosphere has been monitored longer.hers a link for soil......great for draught and planting info for the ag crowdhttps://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-launches-groundbreaking-soil-moisture-mapping-satellite

And this will help people who live and farm in California how?

Pretty soon I expect those fruits and nuts who live there to start sneaking over into the desert in Arizona and stealing our water.

Where did Arizona's water come from in the first place? Arizona? I know there are some really good ground water sources, or at least used to be...but then there is the Colorado River. I think that water actually comes from Colorado. So who owns the water?

According to various treaties, especially the one with Mexico, Mexico owns a pretty large chunk of that river. The United States Government has to guarantee not only a volume of flow across the border, but it has to guarantee a maximum salinity. Hence the largest Reverse Osmosis project in the world (that I am aware of at least) sits adjacent to the Colorado River, somewhere near the border with Mexico, and reduces the salt content of the river to comply with the treaty.

Does Arizona have a treaty with Colorado to release a minimum flow? With the US GOV? With California?

One of the big problems in West Texas (not near El Paso, but near Amarillo and Lubbock) has been the continued inability or unwillingness of New Mexico to comply with agreements on the quantity and quality of water released into the Canadian River, whose source is in the mountains in New Mexico, as I recall. There is a very saline tributary upstream of Lake Meredith (Texas) that is in New Mexico, and over time, it grossly polluted Lake Meredith with way too much salt. Our water here was really horrible for a long time, until the drought led to abandoning Meredith as a resource, and opting for well fields.

The headwaters of the river are in Colorado, yes.

However, the water actually comes out of the sky. And some of that water evaporated from Arizona territory, among other places.

Where the authority to allocate distribution come from is probably hidden in:

Enabling Legislation

In 1988, with the help of the USGS, I undertook a ground water study of the Salt River Valley when massive housing projects were starting in the eastern part of the Valley. At that time the water table had receded over 100 feet in many areas already, rendering many local wells unusable.

I have no idea where the water table is today, but I do know that Arizona still pumps over 1/2 of all the water it uses out of the ground.

The issue of who "owns" the water is one of the mysteries of life to me.

Does that mean you think we should be worried about climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise) or not? I'm not clear which side of the fence you're on, if either, perhaps straddling it.

"Does that mean you think we should be worried about climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise) or not?" ----------

Given somewhat constant solar input I believe planetary albedo and atmospheric composition may be the most significant variables defining equilibrium temperature of our biosphere.

I believe human activity affects both of those variables.

I believe Carbon Credits are a feel good financial instrument that were designed to be used as a type of speculative derivative.

How big is our atmosphere? If the earth were a basketball the first 60,000 feet of our atmosphere would be about .0003588 meters thick. That's about 1/3 of a millimeter or about the thickness of three pieces of copy paper; but it is that thin envelope that is the most significant variable in defining equilibrium temperature given a near constant insolation.

I believe the thermodynamics of our planet is entropic and not cyclic when viewed on an evolutionary scale; possibly with a dampening CO2/O2 cycle when viewed in epochal scale prior to The Anthropocene.

I believe orbital mechanics plays a significant role in epochal scale climate.

I don't believe it is healthy or helpful to "worry" about climate. I believe it is important to the collective well being of our species to understand climate and our effect on the variables of this very large and energetic heat engine.

Further:

I believe when we look at Mars we are looking at the future of our own planet where the loss of our magnetic field due to planetary cooling will result in the kinetic stripping of our atmosphere and exposure to much higher levels of ionizing radiation than Mars is now subject too.

I believe that the ratio of surface area to thermal mass of Mars is MUCH higher than that of earth resulting in its moving through the thermodynamic zone suitable for life as we know it much earlier in the evolution of our solar system. I believe Mars moved through that inhabitable thermodynamic zone much more rapidly for the same reason.

I also believe that it is very possible I don't know squat; but it is fun to think about planetary evolution.

Carbon credits: I could not agree more. It is a Ponzi scheme developed by ALGOREISTS to accomplish two things simultaneously: (1) Grab even more insane amounts of power from the electorate (you common ordinary working folks who don't have time for this crap), and (2) make obscene amounts of money over something that is fictitious, not a real commodity, and something that really has no particular benefit to anyone, except those who dabble in these things and make insane amounts of money from it.

Once more capitalism prevails, since it apparently is a means to untold riches for the power elite. The problem in our country is that the word "elite" was ever allowed into the lexicon in context with a social group. The "elite" are the in-group, and the rest of us are just the out-group, rather the out-house group of sheite-house rats that grovel for the scraps the "elite" allow us to have. I think the time for the rats to rebel over such rations is long overdue.

All these references to "Equilibrium Temperature" when this is a total misnomer. Equilibrium implies a system that is a state of rest (even though there are processes within that system that are kinetically active, but totally balanced, example water acid-base equilibrium). The earth, your body, anything that is alive, the solar system, the sun, our galaxy, and yes, Mildred, even the Universe (and the University) are all examples of systems that are in a state of dynamic flux, in other words, systems far from equilibrium, and in many instances, systems far from equilibrium in dynamic chaos (read up on systems where the control parameters have changed to a point where the system presents the output (whatever that is) as a chaotic randomness, or even quasi-stable periodic repetition (bi-stable, tri-stable, quad-stable, oct-stable, Noni-stable, dodeca-stable, etc.)

While I do not claim to be the world expert on chaos theory, I have included this in some University research I did on the instability of analytical sparks where certain sheath gases were included, notably hydrogen in argon.

I humbly submit that in any system far from equilibrium, the term "Equilibrium Temperature" is really meaningless, and is more resembling techno-babble than the reality of the situation. I submit also that steady-state temperature over nearly any time span you want to name is virtually nonexistent. Certainly, at any point on the globe of Earth, heat flux cannot really be found to be a steady-state, much less at equilibrium.

What you are referring to is some-sort of statistical ensemble of "instruments" that is supposed to be a precise (more or less accurate also) measure of the sum total of heat flux to and from the biosphere. Where is this ensemble of instruments, what are they, and how are they maintained? What is the time span of measurement? What is the %RSD of each instrument in the ensemble, and the ensemble %RSD (by propagation of errors). When scientists gloss over even the most minute details of an attempt to measure something, the thing becomes more like anti-science, and more and more an article of faith.

Given the scale of the system the belief that human activities do not or cannot affect climate variables is nonsense.

"------ at any point on the globe of Earth, heat flux cannot really be found to be a steady-state, much less at equilibrium ----"

Very well, to avoid the distraction of semantics may I use the phrase "average temperature" of "the regions of the surface, atmosphere, and hydrosphere of the earth occupied by living organisms." (1)

Although other regions on the peripheral of "the regions of the surface, atmosphere, and hydrosphere of the earth occupied by living organisms" may play a significant role in determining the "Average Temperature" of "the regions of the surface, atmosphere, and hydrosphere of the earth occupied by living organisms", it is the effect on "the regions of the surface, atmosphere, and hydrosphere of the earth occupied by living organisms" that is of concern when considering "climate."

My consideration of the "Energy Balance" between solar energy inflow and reflected + radiated energy outflow is very close to being a "steady-state" condition where the solar energy flux impinging on the earth is nearly equal to the reflected + re-radiated energy outflow from the earth. This "Energy Flux" varies less than 1/10 of 1 percent throughout the 11 year solar cycle but probably more during the longer scale orbital perturbations resulting from our bary-centric orbit and dynamic relationship between the anomalistic and tropical year.

The "Energy Balance" is a near steady state condition; the "Average Temperature" at which ""the regions of the surface, atmosphere, and hydrosphere of the earth occupied by living organisms" reaches that "Energy Balance" is related to atmospheric composition and the ratio of reflected to incident insolation (albedo); which is also dependent on that atmospheric composition as well as surface topography.

Given the scale of the system the belief that human activities do not or cannot affect climate variables is nonsense.

1. - http://www.bing.com/search?q=biosphere&form=IE11TR&src=IE11TR&pc=DCJB

Ouch!

From wiki:

By the most general biophysiological definition, the biosphere is the global ecologicalsystem integrating all living beings and their relationships, including their interaction with the elements of the lithosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere.

OK - your definition is accepted. What else?

Review the possibility of reaching steady state in the atmosphere. If you are successful and you can measure it let us know!

You seem to try the correct thing. But the only steadiness in the system is the energy out should match energy in. But as you will find the day and night side of Earth will never have the same amount of energy going in and out. And this is also because there is a huge difference in the temperature to begin with.

If you think further then the calculatory attempt to define a average temperature or "equilibrium" that we can destroy (this is what they say when they preach their warming scam) will stay what it is - a calculation. It is nothing that you can measure in reality. So keep measuring the transients and calculate what you want.

Its not going equal ever, even if the world stops turning.

Very well. So you are saying that there is no "perfect" energy balance.

Your brilliant point that energy input and output differs during the night and day is accepted.

Could we possibly agree that the solar energy input to the earth approximates that of radiative output from the earth?

I am confident that the idea that human activity cannot or does not impact climate variables is nonsense.

You can always say "anything" approximates "something else", but that depends on whether the approximation is good to three orders of magnitude, one order of magnitude, 1%, etc. Since you did not stipulate, I say that my daily urine output approximates the volume of the Gulf of Mexico. That does not obviously make sense in the real world.

So please do, continue to blather on.

I don't know what formal propaganda term is used in describing your artful dodge. In any case, anyone who has taken a freshman course in Meteorology understands "heat balance."

Also; the belief or promotion that human activities cannot or do not affect climate variables is nonsense. You can continue your artful dodge, but I am moving on even though I find your nonsense quite amusing.

you're giving mans influence more power than it deserves

The current state of propaganda that you are in that you believe that humans have an impact. And nobody is disputing that we will have some sort of impact.

But as with all things the scale is what makes all the difference. Where ever Earth gets hot there will be a time afterwards where it is cold again(day and night and seasonal). From the energy balance this means that the energy that created the hot is gone. Bye bye energy.

You will find that when looking careful at the atmospheric system that the air temperature is one of the most unstable components. You will also have to acknowledge that the atmosphere has in terms of ground air temperature a tremendous preservation effect but not so much to create an equilibrium. The atmosphere cools and warms ground air and soothes the change that would otherwise exist if there was no atmosphere. Whatever effect CO2 has it will follow that scheme (being part of the atmosphere). With no atmosphere the ground would be hot in the day and cool down in the night with radiation the only option for energy transfer. With atmosphere you have convection and thermal conduction to a degree. The major difference is that you have a medium that you can heat and that can cool down.

If we measure temperature in our lower atmosphere we measure mainly convection effects. This mean we measure ever changing temperatures and then mathematically squeeze it for a "equilibrium". But we do not measure this equilibrium.

I am yet to receive my crash course. Is my understanding of atmosphere correct?

How can you make it sound so scientific when you say these things still using the wrong terms?

Ok, I found this now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperature

Nothing to do with Biosphere and just a theoretical number.

Also nothing to do with what is happening. To remind you there is day and night on Earth. We have a constant change in temperature. So there is no true equilibrium just a transient ever changing cycling temperature. Day makes it hot and the night takes it away. As you will see this makes Earth very much unlike your little marble.

It also means that we have different rates of energy radiation in day and night. I think this is what the satellites are trying to capture now.

Please do not talk of the temperature of the Biosphere any more. You and I are part of it and we have a very much regulated temperature around the 36 deg C. And this is mostly independent from any atmospheric composition (unless we are deprived of Oxygen when we will get pretty cold).

I will have to look up the Equatorial - Polar Thermal Gradient but I already said that we have transients and this is just one of the transitions that is there.

I agree that water vapor is a major factor in the climate system. I also agree that most of the thermal processes on Earth are dominated by convection and conduction and to a smaller degree on radiation, while the heat transfer to the space is entirely radiation.

There is no runaway unless we are stopping to see record cold temperatures. As long as our atmosphere cools down after a hot day and over the seasons I think the energy transfer to space is still functional. We still have to evaluate the heat sink function of the Oceans. They also are the real factors for local and regional climate behaviour. I mentioned soil temperature because this, until now according to Fredski, is a undefined possible heat sink - not being considered and not being properly monitored.

The jury is still out there to judge crucial changes on Earth that really are threatening us. Certainly I am not afraid of day and night and that it gets cold and hot. Neither should you.

The only thing about the possibility of climate change that ever bothered me was that humanity could inadvertently (by enviro-tampering) tweak some mysterious control parameter, such as polar ocean salinity, that could conceivably shut down the deep ocean conveyor belt currents that contribute majorly to regulating our global climate by limiting temperature swings throughout the oceans of the world.

What ???

Yeah exactly that!

Do you have any meaningful comment or do you just want to display your ability of understanding and not understanding?

I am not going to spell it out for you because I thought it is rather simple.

I apologies - I am reading "Hack The Planet" and tumbled to your concern regarding tampering with climate systems. I agree - it is a valid concern.

But I also believe it is also nonsense that human activites do not impact climate variables.

Nobody says we have NO impact. All what is said is that we are more on the receiving end than that we make much of a difference.

Btw it was not me mentioning the tampering.

I couldn't see the equilibrium temp for Earth in the Wiki link, but it would be close to that of the moon, 271K. Doing a basic calc and assuming Earth is a black body, I get 280K. Either figure shows we need some greenhouse effect to keep the planet habitable (as is well known).

But I can't see where Wiki gets equilibrium temp 260K from for Venus. It must be higher than Earth, and putting in higher solar constant for Venus (varies as orbit radius^-2) I make it 330K.

That could very well be the 260 K surface temperature of Venus, since the planet has a very thick and absorptive atmosphere, and much radiation is re-emitted to space. The atmosphere is probably much hotter aloft, near your estimate of 330 K or even much higher.

But it says in Wiki Because of the greenhouse effect, planets with atmospheres will have temperatures higher than the equilibrium temperature. For example, Venus has an equilibrium temperature of approximately 260 K, but a surface temperature of 740 K.

I assume by equilibrium temperature they mean based on a simplistic calculation (like mine) assuming it's a black body. If so I think 260K is wrong. Of course the actual surface temperature (and most of the atmosphere) is much hotter, as Wiki says. I understand the greenhouse effect is because the shorter wavelength radiation from the Sun (due to its high temperature) penetrates the atmosphere, but the longer wavelengths can't get out as easily.

Considering the atmosphere at Venus is mostly carbon dioxide, some sulfuric acid and other "normal" gases, I suspect broad infrared absorption, lots of scattering of short wavelengths (freq to the fourth power), dark materials with low reflectivity at the surface. Sorry about the wrong guess on surface temperature. No wonder the Soviet Venus probes did not last long, it is a wonder they ever made it "near" the surface.

I took a quick look at the history of missions "to" Venus, most of which were flyby missions using gravity sling shot to outer planets, and a lot of them were dismal failures. Not all of them, to be sure, but a lot of failures, in one way or the other. I think the most successful ones were there in higher orbit (I think the atmosphere extends a bit farther due to the temperature and slightly lower gravity), and as I recall they used atmospheric braking to produce a less eccentric orbit over time, then that orbit decayed and the probe obviously failed upon burning up.

Just did the equilibrium temperature estimate assuming Venus is ~ 1.5x further from the sun, rather that 1.5x nearer, and get ~ 240K. Not quite the Wiki figure 260K, but is it just possible they made that mistake?

Venus Facts

"A day on Venus lasts longer than a year:

It takes 243 Earth days to rotate once on its axis. The planet's orbit around the Sun takes 225 Earth days, compared to the Earth's 365."

I think this has something to do with the high surface temperature of 735 K. Also, the rotation is retrograde compared to orbital rotation. Also, there is no axis tilt, thus no seasons on Venus. I am starting to wonder if the Wikipedia reported temperature was the night time surface temperature?

Venus, Texas is quite another thing:

The climate in this area is characterized by hot, humid summers and generally mild to cool winters. According to the Köppen Climate Classification system, Venus has a humid subtropical climate, abbreviated "Cfa" on climate maps. The average July high temperature for Cfa climate is 304 K

"Synthetic Venus atmosphere absorption spectrum" by The author of the workand Hitran on the Web Information System. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons -

Synthetic Venus atmosphere absorption spectrum

"Although the surface conditions on Venus are no longer hospitable to any Earthlike life that may have formed before this event, there is speculation on the possibility that life exists in the upper cloud layers of Venus, 50 km (31 mi) up from the surface where the temperature ranges between 30 and 80°C, but the environment is acidic.[59]^[60][61]

Thermal inertia and the transfer of heat by winds in the lower atmosphere mean that the temperature of Venus's surface does not vary significantly between the night and day sides, despite Venus's extremely slow rotation. Winds at the surface are slow, moving at a few kilometres per hour, but because of the high density of the atmosphere at the surface, they exert a significant amount of force against obstructions, and transport dust and small stones across the surface. This alone would make it difficult for a human to walk through, even if the heat, pressure, and lack of oxygen were not a problem.^[62]"

The above passages from Wikipedia seem to offer some insight: (1) strong heat blanketing, (2) very dense atmosphere (heavy with CO2) results in high wind pressure even at low velocity, with increased thermal transfer (not much difference between night and day) , (3) the only lower temperatures (30-81 C) are found some 50 km above the surface, and it is suspected that some lifeforms could actually possibly exist there. Not sure what they would look like since they are constantly in a sulfuric acid cloud mist up there, and (4) over 90% of incident radiation is reflected or scattered back to space by the upper sulfuric acid clouds. It should be re-named to "hell", and would be a good place for ISIS to colonize.

Diverging from the grammar lesson for a while ...

My first job after graduate school (1980) was working with a team of scientists studying the effects of atmospheric CO2. My primary responsibilities were building a comprehensive bibliography of related research, getting copies of same, and creating a machine-searchable index thereof. (The database work was a fun thing to do when all you had was IBM Big Iron to work with.)

As you can imagine, some of the "research" didn't meet minimal scientific standards. Other articles, the lead scientist did not want to read because he didn't like the researchers who published them. (I have a whole other soapbox about cliques in research communities but this isn't the place to drag that up.) One of these shunned articles turned out to be prescient: the author, whose name I have of course forgotten, predicted a lot of what's happening today: sea levels rising, polar ice melting. This memory has stuck with me. Now even worse effects are on the horizon. I'm with Al Gore on this one.

We are of a like mind.

Whether it be primarily (or partially) man caused, or just the effect of a natural terrestrial thermal cycle, the cold hard facts are obvious for even the blind to see feel.

The use of the word "effect" was purely coincidental and was not intended as a grammar lesson.

The thermal irony was just for laughs.

Affectively stated.....

If we simply flushed AlBore down the toilet, that would almost by itself stop global warning.

At least he wouldn't be flitting all over in his private jet, and his Giant gas-guzzling SUV. Can you spell envirohippocrisy? His fat ass is totally irrelevant.

Does this mean I have to give up my hair dryer?

Ladies first!

I'll stay alert for the pic. Damn the physics; full speed ahead. Yep, forget about arranging the deck chairs, as is likely to happen in Paris; just flop down on the deck and watch the stars twinkle into darkness. And don't forget - a little Nuclear Winter can solve a whole lot of the first non-anthropogenic warming of the Earth in the last 300,000 years when the species survived to eventually trudge out of the Great Rift Valley.

All of this Global Warming/Climate Change garbage is dependent on how measurements are made, how the data is computed, what "Al-Gore-ithms" are used to compute results from the data, and what data is ignored from the computations.

Yes, more ice has accumulated at the South Pole than the North Pole has lost. An inconvenient truth.

A few years back, I was talking to an astrophysics PhD at an event in NYC. He said he had groundbreaking information from a study he was doing, regarding the age of the universe. He said he had found the one body in the Universe that was motionless, that all bodies moved around, or away from. When asked where that body was, his response was, "Well, we can't see it from here."

Yup.

So did he mean this singular body is not visible to the naked eye, or that we cannot see it due to obstructed views to our telescopes? If this thing is out there, motionless, and central (by weighted or other averaging) to the universe, and we cannot see that far, what lies the other side of it? More stuff we can't see, and yet we think we have a pretty good 3D image of the universe from the background thermal microwave and radio emissions.

I almost do not get your point. Yes, climate change is real, we are a part of it (it could be we are only 1 ppt of it, or could be more, IDK), but "you can't see it from here".

This is the first time in history we ordinary citizen scientists are asked to believe in something we cannot see. I thought this was the domain of religion? Even back in the remote past of the 17th and 18th Century, proof was offered in the ability to see in the telescope, or see in the microscope. We scientists are great men of faith. Be careful what you place (or in whom you place) this faith. Only with must study of actual data, an insight as how to interpret data without distortion, being willing to proven wrong or right as to conclusions, does science ever make progress.

If all science always relied upon a consensus, we would still be a few Marks short of the Renaissance, living in fear of falling off the edge. The thing is that if there is an edge, I want to go near it and learn about it. If I get "there" and find out there is no edge, then so much the better, only more to explore.

"I almost do not get your point"

That's because there is no point. Just bliss.

Because yet another someone out there was able to push my "go" button.

I definitely believe in Global Climate Change Cycles. Lots of data that until now, has been clear and undisputed.

As to the point.....proving something exists, not by being able to observe it, but by bending and distorting data until what you are looking for comes in to clear focus.

You are clearly biased, thus your silly comment about the photograph of the smog-enveloped Chinese city.

You see your own vision of your own reality, and insult others with different (or not so different) views.

I believe (at least in the old glory days of real science) that was called rigging, fixing, falsification, hoaxing, and/or lying. Nowadays, I am afraid that is called creative manipulation in the name of the "greater good" or politics, or to keep the grant going.

It is extremely nefarious, sometimes hard to catch, wicked in its intent, and degrades science to the level of something like professional wrestling, but I assume that professional wrestlers would be offended to be placed in the same category. There simply is no excuse at any time to falsify data, and in fact in forensics, there are well-documented instances of data being either "glossed" over, false claims of the data by an expert witness, or downright contamination and planting of evidence that resulted in an innocent (of the particular crime in question) being sent to prison. Most reputable forensic scientists are fast to point out that forensics should and generally does as much to rule out suspects and set the innocent free as it does to convict them of their crimes, is it should be. Science within its own gestalt has no side to pick, no emotion in and of itself, and cares not one whit as to the winner of a dispute.

You should ask yourself, if this were a tribunal, would there be sufficient military evidence for a conviction of war crimes? No. What about a criminal court? No. What about a civil court? Doubtful dispute arises.

If you were a proponent of either side of this argument: is there enough evidence to convict you? I have to ask myself the same question? Which side am I on, if any, and why? Have I ever reversed by opinions about this issue? YES! Of course, when I was a child in high school, this was the pablum of the day, and one took what one received thankfully, and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, so as which to regurgitate it later on the examination.

Now Fredski, you have gone beyond being objective to strictly meddling with politics as usual, please take care, and be safe.

I love the sense of humor, though. Just be aware there are mad dogs and English afoot who will take offense to our comments, sometimes for no reason.

How does one spell power grab? $$$$ the public, $$$$ what they need, and $$$$ the USA. That is how Obama spells power grab. That is why he is always screaming gun control, when what we need is foaming at the mouth muslim control.

I'm a man of science! that costs money

Were you on the Flight of the Phoenix with Hardy Kruger?

No, that was a different and much more experienced aviator than I. The real Jimmy Stewart flew Liberators (B-24) in WWII. I only fly cartoon airplanes in an online game.

"Yes, more ice has accumulated at the South Pole than the North Pole has lost. An inconvenient truth" ----

A slightly larger ice surface area does not indicate greater ice mass. A better indication would be average salinity of the surrounding waters.

The climate IS changing. The debate is now a political debate not a scientific one.

a good leader does not allow science to stand in the way of new fat tax revenue stream

The difference is sea ice as opposed to land ice. Melting land ice is far more bothersome, but the deniers don't want the truth, inconvenient as it may be.

By the way, as Mark Twain said, "never argue with a fool. Bystanders may not be able to tell the difference".