More Cooling

But before climate change skeptics whip out the I-told-you-so's, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) points out that 2016 is still on track to be the warmest year ever recorded.

Here we are at November 18, 2016. Still have not recorded first freeze of the season as yet, although it is due tonight, about 18-19 days later than average.

HCCC has to be real because water never boils when I am staring at it. As long as we are looking at the global mean temperature, it will go up, but not boil X.

X2=3Y + rand(X1); Y=0.05 (rand(X1))

or something to that effect.

I have been wondering for years what the true, "proper" temperature of the earth should be? Nobody seems to be able to identify it, except to point backwards and say it was "back then a ways..." The earth could just as easily be moving toward its "preferred" temperature as away from it. I'm more for the idea that it constantly fluctuates, and trying to force it to some fictional "correct" temp is foolish and useless.

pretty much

Yes I agree, it's only fair that you guys up north should have to deal with hurricanes every year like we do here in the South....

Pff... We see category 1 hurricane winds as a typical gusty day event here too many days a year to care to admit to.

We'll take your hurricanes if you guys will sit through and deal with a solid month of 0 to -30 F (not including wind chill) for 4 - 6 weeks or more plus 2 - 10 feet of snow for 6 months every year.

TCM & SE should be responding with joyful exuberance about the climatic conditions where they live, unless they are incarcerated someplace, whereas prisoners have no say in the choice of their residence.

Wow! nicely done! The buttercups are spinning in their "safe zones" now for sure.

You really should not actually expect those who have deleted actual math (where one number can be greater than another because then they would not be equal, and we just can't have that...nod nod, wink wink) from the curriculum, or those that think ad hominim attacks on the President-Elect of the United States of America should be part of seventh grader class curriculum, or that people who voted for him fall into one and only one category could ever understand a simple mathematical relationship, or even understand statistical analysis.

For such people, having two unequal numbers makes them "feel" uneasy. Having numbers that represent just two observations of what should be a set of numbers, imparts no feeling to them at all. They are numb, incapable of response to actual observations. They cannot interpret what to do about winning and losing because that does not exist in their language. How can you expect them to understand observations, significance testing, variation within a population of a distribution, etc.?

The biggest issue I see in all most everything these days is so many are absolutely convinced that the world and every topic and function of life has to operate in a solely binary bipolar fashion.

There is no middle ground of reason to be accepted. Everything has to either be for or against, good or bad, ideal or unacceptable, right or wrong, winner or loser, hot or cold you believe or you're wrong and that is not how reality works ever.

I see the climate change topic to be a perfect example of this. The thought and admittance of there being anywhere and anyone, let alone a large land area and population base, who may/will be gaining from it is totally unacceptable data and thus should never be discussed or admitted to by anyone at any time. That's bad science and foolish operating procedures.

Ah yes the black and white, versus all the subtle shades of gray in between. We miss so much by skimming over the surface of science, never digging deep in the soup where "the puppy" is.

that's why they always include the phrase, "on record" so they can dismiss everything prior.

Kind of like lawyers in a courtroom. Not supplying all the truth or bringing in all the evidence is not the same as lying or hiding the evidence.

No one asked specifically so they don't provide certain condemning specifics in their defense.

Not lying, just not providing all the information that will disprove their defense.

I just want to see the bottle that contains the sauce these NOAA guys have been drinking...get it, NO..AA.

While I'm not in a position to critique the data either way, I do have this anecdotal observation. I've seen the NOAA very, very scary looking red map earlier this year. At first glance, it did raise an alarm with me. However, as I thought about it further, the scary image on the map did not translate to a summer of 2016 that was significantly any cooler or any warmer than summers over the last ten to twenty years. John and Jane Q. Public also see the disconnect between the hyperbole and the reality. I will fully admit our winters here in the Northeast have not been as severe as the winters I remember from the late sixties through late seventies. Our climate is slowly warming. To what degree it is human influenced is arguable to an eternity. Each side has stockpiled its data and arguments.

OMG! Here we go again! Your "legitimate" climate denial propaganda machine, RealClimateScience.com: is just another sham organization with an agenda that is funded by climate deniers!

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

"According to Brulle, the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting "ultra-free-market ideas" in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.

In the end, Brulle concluded public records identify only a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars supporting climate denial efforts. Some 75 percent of the income of those organizations, he said, comes via unidentifiable sources."

What do scientists and researchers think about 'Real Science''s claims ...

"Real Science" is an agenda driven site that has made many claims inconsistent with the findings of those who actually do research in climate science. That doesn't guarantee that any particular thing written on their site is wrong, but it does mean that anything they claim should be taken skeptically and checked.
In this particular case it is not difficult to show that they have little basis for their allegations of fraud. Their claim seems to be based on satellite data not showing the same temperature anomaly for the October world temperature average as presented by two climate scientists. There are multiple problems with this, and using satellite data as if it can be substituted for land based measurements amounts to intentional deception. I.e., those claiming fraud in this case are in fact misrepresenting the evidence.

So how exactly is providing a second or multiple alternate yet equally scientifically plausible explanations plus more relevant data to a subject to suggest that whats being said by the opposing side is not totally truthful and or accurate in representing the subject as a whole denial?

To me the continual willingness to dig for an make public that additional information and what it means when viewed in and by rational unbiased scientific process says they aren't the ones in denial over anything let alone claiming that only one or a few very specific and poorly representative data values mean everything about the subject and that nothing else matters but those very specific statistically derived data points.

Especially so when anyone who has any knowledge of mathematics and scientific process knows statistics are a liar and cheats best friend when it comes to misrepresenting data for what it really is.

Don't believe everything you read, because both sides can come up with data that they know is better than the other sides data.

He presented his side of the story. I presented the untold part about where the funding came from.

You're starting to sound like Kramarat. "I'm right, you're wrong and here's my favorite data to prove my favorite point.

Interesting, being I consider my views to be largely observative and to point out what's being conveniently left out and or overlooked not who payed for what when and where.

I don't have that filter turned on in my data collection and dissemination system.

If the data fills in some area that being totally ignored or it's likely significance being played down I bring it to light the best can. I could care less who pays for the research that brought it into existence even it it was your own mother.

That's what really honest scientific study is about. Having multiple independent sources doing the research and data collection to make sure the overall work is kept unbiased.

To me the fact that opposing sides are both doing research and coming up with widely differing opinions is great and it should be a clear indicator to everyone that more research and study needs to be done before any conclusions defining let alone placing blame or worse on anyone or anything come into play.

But what do i know, 'clearly I am a denier' being I do not feel that there is only one single side or even just two sides to this issue.

"doing research and coming up with widely differing opinions is great and it should be a clear indicator to everyone that more research and study"

I only see the "climate change is a hoax" side presented here.

Okay, to be fair has anything in your region actually changed climate wise in some way that that is now a bonafide life threatening condition to you and those directly around your that has never happened in all of recorded history in your area.

Not a 'it could come become something XYZ bad IF ABC this that or other changes in the future' but an actually legitimate measureable recordable negative that now affects you and your area in a way that has never existed before?

Not a self perceived inconvenience either but a real bad climatic seasonal or near daily condtion.

Can you personally name any that anyone here would agree with you on as being a real life changing event that can be seen and felt and is not just a reference to some tiny statistical value variation for something that can easily be argued to not truly and accurately represent what you may claim it represents?

So then no real definable change in your area either huh? Even over your entire 50 + year lifetime at that?

Sounds like a whole lot of fuss and good money being tossed at nothing that has yet to show itself as having any outside of normal life dire or negative effects as of yet and all over a statistically derived number that has no real or accurate representation of the real weather events and ranges that happen over any given year to me.

To me that has standard issue scaremongering scam written all over it.

Pay money and give up your freedoms to people and their organizations to have them not really do anything just so you can feel that you're avoiding something you can't actually perceive let alone are likely to ever be affected by let alone witness in any realistic human life time scale al based on a future "what if" that as of now all past 'what if' predictions for the here and now have never proven themselves to have been true either.

So given that you buy into that I have a new scam social charity I have set up where you can donate money to me and I will see to that it will be put toward preventing anything and everything you have fear or concern over happening in the next 50 - 200 years and I will guarantee you 100% results for your donation.

In fact you don't even have to believe in it either plus to make sure I keep you safe I am having legislation passed to make sure you donate at least 10% of your gross earnings and assets to me (for now but it will likely be higher later, no more than 80% of your income and assets) whether your agree with me or not.

It's that important that I take your money protect you from whatever it is you fear in the future because even if you disagree with my reasonings to protect you that's okay. I know you don't know any better because all your scientific rationale and reasoning is flawed where as mine is not.

So given that, let's get you signed up! Would you like to pay by direct deposit or at gun point? I can work with either. I do recomend direct despite being if I have to set you up with the 'at gun point' withdrawal system there will be a service and handling fee behind that and I just know you're not the type to waste money on useless service fees.

We've had this argument before and as I said 50 years does not establish any trend in long term climate history.

Also, you don't get to make the rules up to suit your argument, but here's a real definable change for you from a study by Arizona State Univ.

"The average yearly temperature in Phoenix in 1900 was 69°F, in 1995 it was 74°F"

.Study: Rising AZ temperatures make for hostile environment ...

The Heat is On: U.S. Temperature Trends | Climate Central

Since 1970, warming began accelerating everywhere. The speed of warming across the lower 48 more than tripled, from 0.127°F per decade over the 100-year period, to 0.435°F per decade since 1970, while the gap between the fast and slowly warming states narrowed significantly; the 10 fastest warming states heated up just twice as fast, not 60 times as fast as the 10 slowest warming states (0.60°F vs. 0.30°F per decade). Over the past 42 years 17 states warmed more than half a degree F per decade.

Global Climate Change - Classroom of the Future

In the last 50 years, temperatures in the western United States have warmed. ...

The Modern Temperature Trend - American Institute of Physics

. How is climate changing and how has it changed in the past?

"Okay, to be fair has anything in your region actually changed climate wise in some way that that is now a bonafide life threatening condition to you and those directly around your that has never happened in all of recorded history in your area."

That is a ridiculous question and you know it!

I don't see how being if you had asked me I would have easily stated no and gave you any relevant detail of what I have sen and how it has affected our region overall which to be honest, what we have seen here for weather and short range climate changes the last 30 years has shown itself to be rather braggable year round improvement by our past standards!

Things still have a ways to go but we are happy with the trends we have been seeing and at the rate they are changing this place may just be borderline year round tolerable in another century or two!

Who was it who told me recently, "You don't get to pick your own facts."

Hmmm.... wonder who that could have been?

Here it is almost Thanksgiving and in Lubbock, TX we just had our first freeze of the season over the weekend. Usual average is Halloween night. I think my anecdotal evidence is about as valid as the "science consensus establishment" evidence that we have warming. Oh wait, this just in, there is cooling going on in other places.

I hate the word consensus. First used in 1843, the word derives thus: Latin, from consentire (see consent).

My education was based upon science by proof, evidence in support or denial of a hypothesis (this climate stuff is not a general theory), and healthy debate over the merits, not a panel of yes men ascribing the the "consensus" based on the supposed reputation of the scientists involved, all the while ignoring glaring inconsistencies in the data.

Apparently, the human mind is virtually incapable of wrapping around this simple concept.

Take the entire statement,

"Don't believe everything you read, because both sides can come up with data that they know is better than the other sides data.

He presented his side of the story. I presented the untold part about where the funding came from."

It's all about the money! We can agree on that, right?

I tend to agree, that if one follows the money trail, at the end one will not find a pot of gold, but a very large stinking pile of poo, with flies buzzing all around it waiting for their cut. Not saying that money trails will not lead off in more than one direction.

Cooler heads will prevail in the long run, someone will say "squirrel", and the sophomores will run off chasing it. In the meantime, we will continue to adapt to whatever the universe throws at us, until we get hit by the big one that shuts us all down. It won't be climate change. It will be something like the big Solar dip, gamma ray burst from out there in the cosmos, an asteroid that we knew about, but could not move, or maybe the Yellowstone Caldera, or any of a number of other super volcanoes could let go, and put us back into the stone age (or worse).

Indeed! We can argue about it "till the cows come home" but the reality will be what it is.

_{^{(Keep in mind that I'm always right though)}}

Of course you are. Until about the fourth beer, then it is a toss-up.

Nobody better than the whacko pinko leftist media, and the puppet democrat politicos at hiding money where the sun does not shine on it.

Enough said. Thanks for that reminder.

Climate Change is not a hoax, it is a well-funded plan to separate legitimate businesses from their money, and spread it out into a field of despots, who have no real principles other than the principle of power, otherwise why would they grow as crazy over loss of power as a room full of vampires when the sun light comes in?

So Texas is seeing the same thing we are where there are more Fall, Winter and Spring season days with higher than average temperatures which will in fact push your region's 2016 'Annual Average Mean temperature value' higher than the statistical average.

So to be unbiasedly fair, is not seeing frost until a month later than average something you would consider to have a negative, neutral or positive impact on you and your local environment?

Here it's been showing itself to be an extreamly net postive effect.

Me personally, little to nil effect since I am not farming. If I was farming cotton, having a late freeze allows more crop maturity sometimes, other times it just means the farmer has to use chemicals to defoliate the cotton so that harvesting can begin without getting the white cotton full of leaf trash that lowers grade (and price).

I have seen it only a few times in the remote past (my childhood) where my dad actually had to defoliate, and sometimes he was hoping for late freeze to get just those last few bolls to set. Even there, the late bolls typically will be on the short end of fiber strength distribution and staple length.

In Dakota, I can see where it can allow winter wheat to get up a better stand maturity before snows cover it. Not sure, but I imagine soy beans would yield slightly better if sufficient on moisture. Corn similarly should benefit. Animals will not gain as much weight in cold weather, typically.

If it is too hot to burn tires, what do you do, just stack them up?

The warmer falls here are helping the farmers similar to what your are is dealing with too. The winter wheat and fall coverage crops do way better from it plus the warmer winters help with soil moisture take up in the spring since there is far less deep frost layer to block the spring snow melt from soaking into the ground where it can do some good rather than just running off.

It's pretty rare I burn a tire now. In fact I am in the process of building a dedicated used oil burning boiler to put in my small work shed since the big systems in the shop needs to be rebuilt.

I figure by switching over to a small unit in the work shed just off from the old house the heat that was normally lost to the boiler room in the shop can go directly to the shed where it can dome some good while it heats the old house.

Overall around here the warmer fall we have had has substantially cut down on peopled heating fuel expenses bit time. When I built the shop boiler ~15 years ago I was starting it up in the third or last weeks of October.

Now I have yet to even burn up 100 gallons of propane running the furnace this year and normally in the dead of winter that would have been about a weeks worth of heat for the old house if I didn't have the boiler running.

On an interesting note I have been asking the same question on other forums relating to what has Global Warming actually done in your area to other people and to be honest I have yet to get a single honest reply to it being bad for anyone. It's the same stories as you and I and anyone else have to say.

It's been over all favorable due to better fall winter and spring temperatures and summers have apparently shown no real extensive negative heat effects either. Some Places are marginally drier due to drought in some years but otherwise nothing major or out of the known ordinary and expected ranges.

The biggest measureable negatives mentioned seem to be from politically imposed restrictions and general regulatory meddling than anything natural in the weather. Go figure.

You know, there was a warm period in history, during the Renaissance, I think, when temperatures in Europe were warmer, and Britain actually had a great wine grape production, and good wines produced there during the period. Then came the Little Ice Age, and that put a stop to it.

Here's the more accurate representation of the when aspect of the latest numbers.

Less above typical values at the top summer months and more gains in the early part winter - spring seasons of the year than the long term data lines show.

From here. Seasonal temperatures from ~1880 to present

Here's a new one:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/24653-climate-change-report-record-global-cooling-over-last-eight-months

and another good one:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/14/massive-cover-exposed-lying-alarmists-rebranded-70s-global-cooling-scare-myth/

this video is from the climate change conference:

http://climateconferences.heartland.org/tony-heller-iccc9/

It has a rocky start, but when he gets to the charts, you will find that the government climate organizations have been telling us lies. Are you surprised by this?

New American?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Breitbart?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

You make me laugh in your face if you believe anything in those ultra right wing fish wrappers!!!!!

That's the funniest saddest thing ever!

Please spare us all from such drivel!

Breitbart, you've GOT to be KIDDING!

He will never read or accept them due to his political bias filter system.

The only data he believes is the data that comes from his sources, unless of course that data goes against his beliefs, then it has clearly been manipulated or is false as well.

He's the very definition and living example of a real climate change denier. If it does not fit his beliefs it not true even if every detail of reality shows what he believes and why is not what he claims the data says it should be.

All contrary data is deniable. All first hand life observation that does not agree with his views is deniable evidence of anything even when it meets his highly variable timeline criteria.

The extremely distilled single value statistically derived 'Annual Average Mean Temperature' number is all the proof and data he needs and will ever need and even if that doesn't prove anything that's because enough time has not passed.

Sure in one argument he will tell you 20 - 30 years is enough prove a trend and back up his view but 50 or even a 100+ is not if it goes against him. Just as my asking him if he has seen anything that is actually outside of the real life experience ranges negative in any way come about in his lifetime.

He couldn't answer that in a honest and direct way "because enough time has not passed yet". It's the closest thing I have ever seen him get to saying, 'No. No climate change has not produced what I say and believe it is doing in my long life time."

He's a real true bonafide climate change denier and reference data meaning spinner if there ever was one.

Anybody who uses Breitbart as any sort of reference is beyond help in any way.

Breitbart and that other rag American something spew nothing but raw sewage. Have at it!

You guys make me laugh!

I have never heard of either until this election run so I have no affiliation with them not that it matters being I don't filter my data sources by my perceived view of the political affiliations.

I mean if I did I would have to conclude that since organizations like NASA and NOAA and other such agencies you may see s being credible get a large portion of their funding from the government (the same government that has both far right and far left affiliated people in it) that obviously they are not reliable or unbiased trustworthy sources either.

Kinda interesting how that perceived political affiliation filter and how and where it's applied for what works, huh?

So can you name any data sources you find to be reliable that are not in any way linkable to either far left or far right financial money in some obviously contrivable way?

Or will this just get me another 'There hasn't been enough time yet' type responses to avoid directly answering the question?

(As if most here can't already guess.)

Read it again #27

Climates change. They always have and they always will, both on an local level and globally. Life evolves, adapts or perishes in response to it. That has always been the history of this planet and all life on it. Not wanting the climate to change does not keep it from changing. Arguing about whether or not it's changing is beyond pointless. Change is the constant. Adapt and get over it.

Climate change isn't the greatest threat facing life on this planet anyway. We are. Perhaps climate change is what's needed to make that correction.

As for your first link,

So Arizona and the majority of the Southwest being and having been raw dessert (a naturally harsh climate and ecology) for how many centuries now means what? Are people just now figuring out and coming to the realization that those environments are naturally harsh unforgiving places to live?

Second link,

"Over the past 100 years, the top 10 states warmed 60 times faster than the bottom 10 (0.26°F per decade vs. 0.004°F per decade), when looking at average mean temperatures. During this timeframe, 45 states showed warming trends, although 21 were not statistically significant. Three states experienced a slight cooling trend."

By the numbers your area has so minimally changed in the last century and more to any statically significant level it's beyond realistic human observation. .004 F per decade to be exact which given Arizona has an average annual mean temperature of 75.05 F that .004 F increase is the mathematical equivalent of having a 76 F temperature spike run for about 20 minutes out of the whole year.

Link 3. Grade school science class stuff. Given what you fuss about other people's data references you ought to be embarrassed over having used this one.

Link 4. Nicely done and fair review of the real data collection methods and their accuracy over all present scientific methods being used. But it doesn't scream doom and gloom and it admits to many places seeing favorable changes and even hints at the when factor of temperature data collection methods as well which makes the 'Annual average mean temperature value' number less significant in the overall data so I can't imagine it being of value to your stance.

Link 5. Again you yourself should have major issue with what they are showng being as according to you '50 years is not enough time to define anything' yet that site is trying to define a climate trend only using a 11 year data set that ends in 2006 a full decade ago!

But it does go onto admit this,

"Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}

• Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20^thcentury were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. Some recent studies indicate greater variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR, particularly finding that cooler periods existed in the 12 to 14^th, 17^th, and 19^th centuries. Warmer periods prior to the 20^th century are within the uncertainty range given in the TAR. {6.6}
• Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20^th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3 to 5°C higher than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit. The Greenland ice sheet and other Arctic ice fields likely contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level rise. There may also have been a contribution from Antarctica. {6.4}"

So would that imply that at roughly the similar point between the second and last ice ages then as we are at now coming into probably had warmer year round temperatures than we have now?

So what's the deal here? Your own links are basically counter to your stance and instead represent much of the very things you fuss about other people's links and data being invalid or irrelevant for.

Reality denier or just an old hypocrite?

Clearly, anyone could also say the same of the New York Times, and any number of other left-wing media fish wrappers. Come on, Lyn. You know I am right!

That is the whole entire problem in a nutshell. Here in this modern era, we have science being politicized by persons with agendas. That is no different from Europe during the middle ages, or even the Renaissance.

Any time someone steps outside the supposed paradigm they used to cut them off at the knees (figure of speech). Is it any different now? Has the human race grown up and learned how to access and interpret scientific information? I do not think so.

Not too sure about the Brietbart thing. But this I have observed.

There is no journalism coming out of these networks: ABCNNBCBS. There is no accountability to anything they say. Oh, maybe a liar will occasionally be pulled off the big desk but this doesn’t equal accountability.

What ever happened to digging out the facts no matter where they lead. I guess it’s quicker and more sensational to throw crap against the wall and see what sticks. Talk about beyond help.

Just a lot of wasted electrons as far as I can tell.

While I don't usually pay much attention to the global warming enthusiast, I have made one observation, most of the people that subscribe to this dogma tend to drive gas guzzling vehicles with Save The Earth or Greenpeace stickers festooned all over the back of their cars.

So what does the organization that publishes "Science" have to say about this?

Or the organization that operates our meteorology satellites? Surely they must have gone on record in this debate.

Has human kind affected planetary albedo?

Has human kind affected atmospheric composition?

A yes answer to either of those straight forward questions would indicate anthropomorphic impact on climate.

I had to chuckle when you typed "unbiased organizations say".

I'll let it pass at that.

I say that any time we can see the air we are breathing it is not good for us or the atmosphere and certainly not for humanity.

Oh well, all our troubles are over now that all sanity has left our government, and "unbiased organizations" have taken over.

Considering that the insane have been running the asylum for at least the last eight years, OK. There are no unbiased organizations, anywhere, anytime. You should already know the steps in the evolution of an organization, or should be able to look them up. Every organization begins with some wonderful mission statement, then starts to deviate from that over time as power builds up within its group. The final step ends with total dysfunction of the organization relative to the original mission - it exists only for its existence and power, much like the Republic (a Democracy) that changed to the Empire (Dictatorship) in the hands of the evil Chancellor (Star Wars saga). So much for unilateral executive orders, the pen and telephone approach to government.

So far, I say we have a fairly good chance to "drain the swamp", and "start over" with statesmen (from both sides), rather than all these 20 year career politicians.

I say we are doomed to destruction! We now have a psychopath running the asylum.

There will be one family that will enrich themselves immensely at the expense of all others.

Uh what? We voted to not have her and her family in charge. Again with the reality denial.

Oh yea, The interesting thing about psychopaths is the are not all bad people. In fact when you need something done that no one else has the guts to do that's where you need a real bonafide psychopath on your side. Not only will they do the dirty work most will do it for free just for their own personal enjoyment!

I take you have never been on a brand new construction site before right at the begining because if you had even once you would know that when you have a big dirty job to do you don't go at it with feather dusters. You get the biggest meanest equipment you can find and go nuts with it tearing out the unwanted stuff and make a hell of a mess in the begining.

If you mean "we" as in "We The People" as in the popular vote, again you are wrong.

But, none of that matters. Unfortunately the drain is stopped up and now overflowing.

You are free to claim victory over the world if it makes you feel better.

The way these guys go at it with each other, this forum is more entertaining than c#@!g$£|$t rant & raves.

Yea, Someone even made a video of us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

As the more educated and experienced people for the world seem to have little trouble understanding, 'Just because something's a popular belief doesn't make it true or right. '

And as far my victories go, well I did manage to take the step back and look at the problem in enough detail to come to see that the planetary climate as it operates is a dynamic multidimensional systems that cannot be accurately represented by a single monodimensional number no matter who hard a person believes it can and then be willing to share what I have come to see with anyone who will take the time to listen.

That in itself is a victory on my part very few have apparently been and are willing to fight for.

What victories have you claimed in all of these debates other than having consistently scored the most criticisms of your views by the most people outside myself plus accumulated the most OT votes in said debates?

Which BTW I have actually given you more GA votes to offset what I saw an unreasonable OT votes in these debates than I have for anyone anywhere in this forum so far which should be taken as a fair compliment being I find the whole voting thing here pointless and silly to begin with.

Interesting, but not convincing.

The first OT vote is typical of the rest.

I copied a direct quote from the cited article in #1.

Perhaps the lack of quotation marks rendered it OT?

Here's the entire first paragraph:

"Every month since May 2015 has broken the record for average global temperature recorded that month. Finally, after a 16-month hot streak, October 2016 saw slightly cooler temperatures than those recorded this time last year, thanks largely to the La Niña weather phenomenon. But before climate change skeptics whip out the I-told-you-so's, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) points out that 2016 is still on track to be the warmest year ever recorded."

As for the rest of the thread, it went where it went, as most do.

Maybe Hell will freeze over and prove your point. Time will tell.

You win on word count for sure. The rest is debatable.

Why would you talk about the Clintons that way?

As has been discussed before, albedo is only one fraction of the entire energy equation, and isolating it as a point of discussion is completely inconclusive. It seems that it matters, mainly to people walking on hot asphalt during the summer, in congested downtown areas.

Look at the big picture: Do you really think Earth appears any different from outer space today than it did 200 years ago, or 400 years ago? Could your eye discern that?

Albedo is a primary variable in defining equilibrium temperature.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of your nonsence.

I believe you have no idea what you are talking about. You will be hard fetched to find your equilibrium temperature. But you are welcome to explain.

When we refer to "Global Warming", 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.

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 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 "green house 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 green house gases may tip a delicate balance; but it will be the exponential relationship between temperature and average atmospheric saturation that causes the “runaway.”

In the common media, I have seen some comments about the effect the 11-year solar cycle has on climate.

Solar output varies only by about one tenth of one percent during that cycle. This is a very small variation in solar input when considering the exponential relationship of input energy to equilibrium temperature

In and of itself, a one tenth of one percent change in solar output would have a negligible effect on Equilibrium Temperature, with all other variables, including atmospheric composition, remaining the same.

Perhaps something worth consideration in scientific debate is orbital mechanics. One variable in this reference is the time difference between the anomalistic year and tropical year; and the effect this has on planetary albedo. (Reflectivity)

The anomalistic year is the time it takes for our planet to move from perihelion passage to perihelion passage. (Perihelion is the closest point to the sun in Earth’s elliptical orbit.)

The difference between the tropical year and anomalistic year is about 1506 seconds. This results in perihelion passage shifting gradually from summer to winter and vice versa about every 10,450 years.

Because of the differing land areas, vegetation, and ice areas, the northern and southern hemispheres have different reflective values. As a result, the earth would be absorbing solar energy at a differing rate in that 10,450 cycle.

Another consideration is that the distance between the earth and sun at perihelion passage varies considerably without any change in semi-major axis or orbital eccentricity required; a variation in distance from Sun center of mass that approximates one solar radius.

This is because the prime focus of Earth's orbit is solar system barycenter, not Sun center of mass. Earth's orbit is not heliocentric; it is barycentric with Jupiter playing a very significant role in the location of that barycenter.

The location of Solar System Barycenter is not a fixed position relative to Sun center of mass and is constantly changing. It can be imagined as the fulcrum point where the mass of the Sun and the mass of Jupiter would balance if both were placed on a long plank. It is the center of mass of our solar system and the prime focus of all “heliocentric orbits.” It rotates around Sun center of mass, on the approximate orbital plane of Jupiter, and in step with Jupiter’s orbital track.

It is quite possible that orbital harmonics, induced by our barycentric orbit in relation to Jupiter's orbital period, has introduced epochal orbital perturbations not yet considered by climate scientists.

The solar energy that the earth is exposed to varies as the cube of the distance from Sun to Earth. Any change in either orbital eccentricity or semi-major axis due to harmonic orbital perturbation would definitely affect Earth's equilibrium temperature.

Even without significant orbital perturbation, it is probable that the 10,450-year anomalistic cycle alone would significantly influence climate; even with the exponential relationship of re-radiated energy to equilibrium temperature.

After referencing all of the above there are events that really make the whole issue of anthropogenic and orbital causes of variable climate quite moot.

I refer here to large volcanic or impact events, both of which have had very dramatic effect on short-term climate (a few years) and quite possibly hundreds, thousands, or millions of years during times of multiple events.

When looking at relatively small impact events, the kinetic transfer may be dwarfed by the geologic energy input subsequent to the event.

An example would be a 300 meter impactor with the kinetic impact equivalent of let us say - 400 megaton. Depending on where the impact takes place it could trigger geologic events such as volcanoes; where the geologic events would dwarf the initial impact event in the amount of injected dust, ash, water vapor, and other gasses injected into the atmosphere.

In any case, one major impact or volcanic event would render the "political debate" of anthropomorphic effects on climate meaningless. This is not saying that anthropomorphic induced changes to our atmosphere should not be addressed; just that there are other significant variables to consider. Keeping in mind that it has only been a brief moment in geologic history that human kind has had the capability to significantly influence both atmospheric composition and planetary albedo.

There is no such thing as "perfect" blackbody radiator, however, there are very close approximations to them.

I beg to differ on one of your statements where you claim the earth is not a blackbody radiator, so what? One can approximate Earth behavior as a blackbody radiator with wavelength specific "fudge-factors", but that even is not necessary, as it simply approximates one to some level of accuracy, maybe 50%.

Factor of 2 is not much in science, usually where the theoretician got lazy with a derivation.

It is in proportion to Boltzman constant* Emmisivity * Absolute Temp^4 ?

There is no need to write a manifesto every post. I mean wow, really?

Just for the record.

Gav and I had a small discussion outside the court.

He already put his writing in above.

I just realise that my response is private so I decided to put it here now.

No it is not! Solar irradiance is the primary variable. Everything else is secondary. Don't be a twit!

See Stefan - Boltzmann Law. It was their idea really. As much as I'd like to take credit for my twitness.

Gav: you misspelled nonsense. You say albedo so often, it appears that you are fixated on that one variable. Get over it. It is one variable. I would bet good money it has not changed (if there actually is data on it) more than a ppm here and there.

The solar flux is the primary variable, silly man, albedo is secondary at best.

I think one of the things leading to HCCC is all of the hot air coming out of the various scientific organizations that stopped actually advancing science a long time ago, in favor of fancy $100-$1000 per plate political dinners, fund raising for Democrat political hacks, and crooked pollsters.

The general public cannot help that they have been brainwashed into believing the swill dished out in the name of science. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the climate, and even less than nothing to do with science. I suspect you don't have a very intimate relationship with science, yourself.

I don't care to address the political debate on climate change.

What interests me is Stefan-Boltzmann Law and how it could be used to derive the solar constant. Just to see if the numbers fit.

I'll let the engineers and scientists figure out if the temperature is changing. Personally I would be more interested in Henry's Gas Law and its relationship to Ocean - Atmosphere O2 levels. I'm not suggesting that the ocean is unsustainably supporting atmospheric O2 levels; heck no. I think its just an interesting introduction to the fundamentals; certainly not a rude awakening to the art of misdirection.

You know what they say about Engineers? You can always tell an engineer; but ya can't tell em much.

Try this article in Wikipedia:

S-B Law for dummies

I am telling you right now, that you will be unable to define the system you are observing or attempting to observe such that your estimates will be remotely meaningful. It simply does not follow that the oxygen in the atmosphere is a result of dissolved oxygen in the ocean, nor is it the other way around, since this is not a physical system only. It is a physio-chemical-biological system, and as such, simple physics of gases and water may or may not correlate. If it does correlate, it might be purely by accident. The beaten horse, will eventually die and lie down. Continuing to beat said horse will not miraculously resurrect it.

Atmosphere O2 levels cannot decrease until ocean solute is depleted to equilibrium. I don't care HOW complicated system may be; the gas laws will apply.

I think you have Henry's Law confused with something else. The Earth is a system far from equilibrium. Your concepts of Henry's Law equilibrium would not and do not apply the way you are attempting to work it.

That's like saying the laws of gravity have no influence on an orbiting body because of complex perturbing forces.
And the Atmosphere - Ocean system IS in dynamic equilibrium in the context of ocean and atmospheric O2 concentrations. The partial pressure of atmospheric O2 will not and cannot change without a change in ocean solute concentrations.
Now you can present some extreme example - such as rapid oxygenated combustion just above the surface of a liquid - where the O2 solute will momentarily be above the aqueous equilibrium state; but given enough time it will return to equilibrium.

The amount of O2 dissolved in ocean water is minute with respect to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. You need to stop this line of argument before (too late) you make a complete fool of yourself.

Really ? Well imagine that!

If some moron magically sucked all the oxygen out of the world's oceans down to 0 residual ppb, the atmosphere would re-saturate the water in a reasonable time profile based on mixing and diffusion limits, and still not much if any change at all in atmospheric % O2 would be detected. Now do you understand? Or do you insist on being "right", and getting a snowflake participation trophy?

Got it; can you describe what might occur to ocean solute in the opposite case; where there is a slight decrease in atmospheric O2 partial pressure?

Is it possible to have a very slight decrease in atmospheric O2 pp without a measurable decrease in O2 ocean solute?

What do you suppose the ratio of O2 partial pressure to solute molar concentration is for oxygen and water?

By the way that is a very cool airplane. Have you ever flow one like that?

I have only flown that one in a multiplayer game.

Henry's law is virtually inapplicable to oceans/atmosphere because these are not controlled equilibrium systems, not even quasi-equilibrium, and they are OPEN systems, not closed. Get that brain of yours wrapped around the concepts here, simple chemical physics does not generally apply without some serious qualifications, and limitations of how applied.

Is it possible to have a very slight decrease in atmospheric O2 pp without a measurable decrease in O2 ocean solute?

You are really hung up on this aren't you?

If you took a volume of seawater, and put it into a closed steel vessel, and pumped out part of the air (after of course allowing the air and water to come to equilibrium), since both the partial pressures of nitrogen and oxygen decreased (neglecting other gases for the moment), then the residual of gas dissolved in water (at equilibrium) must now also be less.

This does not necessarily mean that equilibrium is instantaneously assumed. Material transfer between phases has to take place to restore equilibrium.

In an open system, you might well take 'er out and pee in the ocean, and see if it fills up.

Is there any other way that the partial pressure of Oxygen might be reduced in your closed system experiment?

Could you share with me how reducing the partial pressure of a gas over a liquid in an "open" system would be different than in a "closed" system in relation to the solute?
"-----then the residual of gas dissolved in water (at equilibrium) must now also be less."
How much less?

By definition our planet is a "closed system." With only energy and not mass being easily exchanged with its surroundings.

AND -

I stand on the premise:

That atmosphere O2 levels are decreasing , atmosphere O2 levels cannot decrease without reducing ocean O2 solute, and depletion of O2 from ocean solute is unsustainably supporting atmosphere O2 Levels.

No. It is not a closed system, it is a system that is very open, and very far from equilibrium. You are totally clueless in this regard. Give up.

This is not correct. The most populous organisms are still bacteria - related to the blue-green algae that flooded our planet with oxygen in the first place. That is not an equilibrium physical system. It is a physical biological chemical system, and it is OPEN.

You apparently cannot do physical chemistry, because you cannot define a system.

Am I correct in defining an "Open System" as a system that readily exchanges energy AND MASS with its surroundings?

Am I correct in defining a "Closed System" as a system that readily exchanges ONLY ENERGY with its surroundings?

I would expect you to make the argument that material from space and kinetically stripped gas from our atmosphere constitutes "the ready exchange of mass with surroundings." Or misdirect with relativity theory - my reply would be - "hogwash."

Our planet is a "closed system" that readily exchanges only energy with its surroundings.

AND

I stand on the premise:

That atmosphere O2 levels are decreasing , atmosphere O2 levels cannot decrease without reducing the O2 fraction of ocean solute, and the depletion of O2 from ocean solute is unsustainably supporting atmosphere O2 Levels.

You are full of it, about your closed system/open system argument. You have yet to define whatever system you are referring to, and still ignoring that what you have referred to thus far is not a system at equilibrium. All the chemical physics you know are for equilibrium systems, not systems far from equilibrium.

Earth is alive, and is breathing in and out as surely as you are.

ROFLMAO at your idea that oxygen is decreasing in any significant way.

disinformation site put up by the Chicoms and North Koreans

Is this where you are sourcing your lies from?

"ROFLMAO at your idea that oxygen is decreasing in any significant way." ---

Atmosphere concentrations of O2 CANNOT decrease "in any significant way" without first depleting the O2 fraction in ocean solute.

Specific reference to decreasing Atmosphere Oxygen levels can be found here. - small but measurable.

http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

Habitat compression for ocean bill fish has decreased by about 15 % since 1960 due specifically to de-oxygenation.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1304.epdf?referrer_access_token=P6XTS2Kx1k7IohqFonKmFtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OGwD93nvwb633Z8KfXxzL3zpzrRkpyioCErjl9ClPOk5D0RPHHo5zo5Q8zkiZhDO8g4_zzr5pd8OART1KVUywXYh-50-1jGA0oBs46hASsMMsf1qk0FPoNf0yaZViqkDI2VaycYevrzJYIwuwfnKnlt7UPjk8_4SPASBQoOOnIsOEqGwPxjS3CthxcBdRp_nqAfxF1UWNvi4TUhQcykOhW&tracking_referrer=news.nationalgeographic.com

If you have "other" references I would be happy to peruse them.

There used to be an applicable word for your line of reasoning, and bombastic is not it. I think the word I am looking for is arcane, or unknowable.

The observed downward trend amounts to 19 'per meg' per year. This corresponds to losing 19 O₂ molecules out of every 1 million O₂ molecules in the atmosphere each year.
Here in about a million years we might run out. In the meantime, there will be algal blooms that will cover the losses.

You are keeping yourself ginned up over this? Really? I have more pressing matters to attend to. You are hard-headedly wrong. Just because you repeat the mantra over and over doesn't prove a thing.

Gavilan: Henry's Law of Gas Solubility at a constant temperature states that the quantity of gas dissolved in a given liquid (oxygen dissolved in water in present case), is dependent on temperature, but is primarily and singularly proportional to the partial pressure of the gas in the entire gas above the liquid. Is that clearly enough stated that you will now understand what you have been trying to say is totally and completely backward. BTW - Henry's Law only applies to a system this is (1)closed, and (2) at equilibrium.

Clearly, the Earth is not (1) closed, and is not (2) at equilibrium. I rest my case.

Your understanding of Henry's law is arse over tea kettle backward. It is the gas partial pressure being present in the head-space above the liquid that determines solubility in the liquid (as a function also of temperature). Changes in the liquid portions not "in contact" thermally with the gas can only be restored to equilibrium by (1) mixing of the liquid to produce thermal contact with the gas, (2) gas permeation down through the mass of the liquid (diffusion limited), or by (3) other changes chemically in the liquid that assist in restoring equilibrium, such as emittive sources, temperature changes, etc.

The solubility of the gas is a property of the liquid. The partial pressure of the gas above the liquid is not a property of the liquid.

By the way, all computer based climate models are just wrong because the boundary input values are (1) non-physical numbers, and (2) the numbers were not applied correctly. Warm objects are never heated by cooler objects, it simply does not happen. The mathematician in Britain that set up the first computer model did not get the memo that Dines numbers were crap. Every model since then has been wrong, and proposes to have the atmosphere violate laws of heat conservation, and also the laws of thermodynamics.

If it is crap, what do you do with it? You flush it!

We are discussing the unique Gas Equilibrium Concentration Ratio for specific species of gasses and liquids.
My premise: The rate AND DIRECTTION of transfer of a specific gas, in this case O2, between the ocean and atmosphere will be directly proportional to deviation from Henry’s Constant at Standard Atmosphere and Standard Ocean.
I suggest that a 2 percent reduction in ocean dissolved oxygen, in combination with decreasing atmospheric O2 partial pressure, indicates natural and anthropogenic consumption of O2 significantly exceeds photosynthetic production.
I’m am ready to hear a reasonable argument as to why it does not.

I guess the thing that strikes me the most is how people who have lived and died by the accuracy of, and faith in, the numbers can suddenly ignore the very foundation of their life. Strange.

That's one of the biggest problems with trying to reduce multidimensional reality down to raw single dimensional mathematics and numbers.

Too often the numbers produced don't show anything about the reality of what is or is not actually happening and when.

As Lyn screams 'it's gotten hotter and that means everything'. Well no, not really, being although the statistical number went up the actual thermal gradient value (~56.7 F) it represents is way below and well under the upper limits that the most common and primary life forms do best in which is generally accepted to be in the ~70 - 100 F range.

Now historically the planet did go through a high level 'Greenhouse Earth' stage (several times actually) where the 'Global Average Mean Temperature' was believed to be around to at least 15 - 20+ F higher than it is now and CO2 levels topped 4000+!

Carboniferous period climate.

What's interesting about those time periods is that the planet was not a burned out dry desolate desert but by fossil records a extremely lush and highly biologically diverse one teaming with all forms of life, especially plant life. Those time periods left us with what we now see as our primary world wide coal beds that were formed ~200 - 350 million years ago.

In all practical scientific review when comparing today's climate with what has been typical on this planet for most of its higher lifeform developing and sustained period of the last ~500 million years right now is what could be easily seen as by far being a very cool, dry, CO2 deficient and all around far from favorable time.

'Heroic' Antarctic explorers left sea-ice clues

Not much change in 100 years.

If there isn't a musical being produced based on the lot and arguments presented here then Broadway is missing out.

I might actually buy a ticket for a change. What would it be named I wonder?

I found an article about CO₂ levels in the Earth's history:

http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

Here is a quote:

"Scientists have also observed that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases during periods of warming. However, an increase in temperature always precedes an increase in carbon dioxide, which generally occurs decades or centuries after any change of temperature. We have not observed an increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide to have preceded a period of warming."

It contains the appropriate charts.

-S