Atmospheric CO2 & Interglacial Temperatures.....CO2 showing no warming Impact.

[BethesdaWX]

video above

CO2 is apparently 30% higher than any other time in the past 600,000yrs, & methane is apparently 130% above any other time in the past 600,000yrs...yet, vostok ice core data demonstrates no temperature variations in correlation....we're actually colder now than any other WP peak by 6-10C

http://wattsupwithth...-earths-future/

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/ch1.php

[skierinvermont]

When you cut and paste long articles you need to put them in italics so it doesn't appear as if you actually wrote it.

Also, the argument is garbage.

[BethesdaWX]

When you cut and paste long articles you need to put them in italics so it doesn't appear as if you actually wrote it.

Also, the argument is garbage.

:lol:

1) I linked the source of the excerpt before the text. If you has clicked on the link I posted & read it, you would know this. Actually, you should know it regardless.

2) Why is the argument garbage? It is all based on peer reviewed evidence & logical reasoning.

Truth is, the warming we have seen, at this time, is within the norms of expectation.

He is correct, if anything is unprecedented, its how cold we are at this time.

For the high Co2 & methane levcels, global temps right now should be MUCH warmer than any seen in the past 600,000 years. Instead, the Holocene has been the coldest cycle we've seen, despite the immense Co2 in the atmosphere.

[skierinvermont]

If you are quoting it should be in quotes or italicized. Preferentially italicized for long quotes.

[BethesdaWX]

If you are quoting it should be in quotes or italicized. Preferentially italicized for long quotes.

o.......k.

You still didn't answer why the argument is garbage.

[stellarfun]

The single author of this paper is Fredrik Ljungqvist. Mr. Ljunqqvist is a graduate student in history at Stockholm University, and affiliated with the university's Center for Medieval Studies. He is pursuing a doctorate, with the subject of his thesis being the ideology of kinship in medieval Scandinavian laws.

His interest in paleo-climate seem to center on the Medieval Warm Period and Greenland. In the course of pursuing this particular interest, he has sought to collect and tabulate various temperature records from the literature. His paper offers no new science, and is simply a reconstruction based on his collection of temperature records, and written by somebody who is a historian.

Excerpts from another paper from Mr. Ljungqvist, with an interesting observation about the ice pack.. As some here assert that sediment records are worthless, the paper may offer little value.

Climate deterioration during the late Middle Ages is one of the classic and perhaps most plausible explanations for the demise of Norse Greenland. The theory of substantial climate deterioration has, however, been a disputed issue and has until recently lacked clear evidence in the proxy records. Modern palaeoclimatology in the past 15 years has, much due to the debate on recent global warming, resulted in an increasing number of palaeoclimate studies concerning Greenland, most of which are of significant interest to the study of the medieval Norse settlements. The now available proxy records show with rather good accuracy that it was indeed warmer than today in Greenland at the beginning of the Norse period, even taking the most recent warming into consideration, and that significantly lower temperatures than today were the norm at the time of the depopulation of the Norse settlements.

This paper will examine the most important palaeoclimate studies concerning Greenland’s climate over the past 2,000 years and discuss the significance of the results for the carrying capacity of the Norse settlements, with emphasis on the Eastern Settlement (Eystribygð). The proxy studies that will be discussed include those of deep-sea sediment cores, lake sediment records and ice core borehole δ18O records. A special emphasis will be placed on studies of the shifting amounts of pack-ice in the East Greenland Current, because experience from Iceland demonstrates that pack-ice close to the coast during the growing season could have had devastating consequences for Norse-style pastoral farming. The negative impact that large amounts of pack-ice could have had on essential maritime activities, such as seal hunting and fishing as well as voyages to remote resource regions and commercial links with Iceland and Norway, will also be considered.

It will be argued that the proxy data supports a lowering of the average temperatures during the growing season between the time of settlement (landnám) and depopulation with up to as much as 2°C in the interior fjord regions in the Eastern Settlement, while the drop in temperatures – primarily owing to increasing amounts of pack-ice – could have been around 3°C on the outer coast. Through knowledge of the annual effective temperature sum needed for a satisfactory hay harvest it is possible to reconstruct the impact different changes in average temperatures would have had on biomass production and thus on the Norse pastoral farming economy. It will be demonstrated that it is plausible in the light of the palaeoclimate data that the annual effective temperature sum measured in degree-day units most years dropped well below the minimum required for a satisfactory and ecologically sustainable hay harvest in many locations in the Eastern Settlement at the end of the Norse period.

[BethesdaWX]

The single author of this paper is Fredrik Ljungqvist. Mr. Ljunqqvist is a graduate student in history at Stockholm University, and affiliated with the university's Center for Medieval Studies. He is pursuing a doctorate, with the subject of his thesis being the ideology of kinship in medieval Scandinavian laws.

His interest in paleo-climate seem to center on the Medieval Warm Period and Greenland. In the course of pursuing this particular interest, he has sought to collect and tabulate various temperature records from the literature. His paper offers no new science, and is simply a reconstruction based on his collection of temperature records by somebody is a historian.

Excerpts from another paper from Mr. Ljungqvist, with an interesting observation about the ice pack..

What the heck does this have to do with the study at hand? The DATA was not put together by Ljunqqvist, because it was referenced through several peer reviewed studies from scientists around the world.

Also, if you read the link I posted, you'd see that there are several scientists who are working on the MWP project.

[stellarfun]

What the heck does this have to do with the study at hand? The DATA was not put together by Ljunqqvist, because it was referenced through several peer reviewed studies from scientists around the world.

Also, if you read the link I posted, you'd see that there are several scientists who are working on the MWP project.

You mean the link to CO2 Science?

You must have not read, or not comprehended if you did read, the brief assessment that I posted of CO2 Science; to wit, this is a site run by a family whose background is primarily agronomy and agricultural sciences; a family who concedes they are funded by ExxonMobil principally because they disagree with the published science on CO2 having an impact on temperature (they assert there is no impact).

Because CO2 was the source for your post, I went to the Swedish journal itself to see what the paper by Llungqvist said, at least the abstract, because I was not about to pay to read the entire paper.

[BethesdaWX]

You mean the link to CO2 Science?

You must have not read, or not comprehended if you did read, the brief assessment that I posted of CO2 Science; to wit, this is a site run by a family whose background is primarily agronomy and agricultural sciences; a family who concedes they are funded by ExxonMobil principally because they disagree with the published science on CO2 having an impact on temperature (they assert there is no impact).

Because CO2 was the source for your post, I went to the Swedish journal itself to see what the paper by Llungqvist said, at least the abstract, because I was not about to pay to read the entire paper.

Dude, are you blind?

What does this have to do with the Science in this study? The Science was gathered from Peer-Reviewed data from many thousands scientists around the world, each one is linked in the article you admittedly did NOT read.

When have you seen me bring "Green Funding"? Is this your last resort?

Back on topic now, at least, thats where I'm headed.

[skierinvermont]

o.......k.

You still didn't answer why the argument is garbage.

So change it.

It is garbage because it is a collection of anecdotes and does not prove anything. To reconstruct GLOBAL temperature, you must synthesize large amounts of global data.

No where in the article is a reconstruction offered, and no where does it even assert that the MWP was warmer than present. In fact the author says quite specifically that temperatures of the last two decades are quite possibly HIGHER than any time in the last 2,000 years.

[BethesdaWX]

Dude, this is the largest study on the past 600,000yrs & MWP ever conducted, with data from hundreds of peer reviewed studies from thousands of scientists around the world. Data is more global than any other study as well, every region of the world is included.

How does your argument hold any ground? If you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up by disproving the science through actual data...

I thought peer-reviewed data was the mesiah in your eyes.

[WeatherRusty]

My short take on this is that the science detailing the temperature reconstructions may be well sourced (I have not looked at it in detail), but some of the conclusions drawn from the analysis of said science is dubious at best.

To say, based on the science, that the Holocene interglacial is cooler than some in the past is quit well supported. To infer that the current temperature is lower than at times during previous interglacial periods may in fact be correct. The current global warmth is likely not unprecedented, but is likely within a degree of being so. Our current scientific understanding is that global temperature is going to exceed 1C-2C in the very near future if we do not curb our fossil fuel dependence in short order. Global temperature could rise 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C etc. over decades and centuries rather than millennia.

Overlapping methodologies (apples & oranges) in reconstructing the temperature record is common practice in science and certainly valid within understood margin for error.

CO2 is higher than at past times mentioned in the article, but the system is not at equilibrium with the resulting forcing. Temps will continue to rise. Greenhouse warming is slow yet persistent and can be masked or enhanced by other climate variables on relatively short time scales.

This article concentrates to much on regional comparisons with CO2 rather than global ones and to much on short time frames. This approach is very common in skeptic arguments.

[stellarfun]

Dude, this is the largest study on the past 600,000yrs & MWP ever conducted, with data from hundreds of peer reviewed studies from thousands of scientists around the world. Data is more global than any other study as well, every region of the world is included.

How does your argument hold any ground? If you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up by disproving the science through actual data...

I thought peer-reviewed data was the mesiah in your eyes.

He only looked at 51 records, not hundreds. He only used records for the Northern Hemisphere, most above 40N. And of the 51 records, he relied on only some of the 51.

Here is what he has to say about the sub-region temperature trends:

Greenland:

"We can thus conclude with reasonable safety that the MWP in Greenland well exceeded the observed 20th Century warming, though this did not necessarily apply to the Arctic region as a whole."

Central Europe

"The reconstructed temperature variability of the last 12 decades is about 2C, with probably the warmest temperatures observed at the end of the 20th Century. although this is within the uncertainty level of the medieval warmth." [basically, an insufficient number of records to calibrate the MWP in Central Europe.]

China

"Late 20th Century temperatures may be the highest in the last 12 centuries."

North America

"A very sharp warm peak during the MWP occur [sic] c AD 960 with temperature records equaling those of the last two decades."

So of the four Northern Hemisphere sub-regions he looked at, in only one -- the smallest from an areal standpoint -- are current temps below peaks during the MWP.

[BethesdaWX]

My short take on this is that the science detailing the temperature reconstructions may be well sourced (I have not looked at it in detail), but some of the conclusions drawn from the analysis of said science is dubious at best.

To say, based on the science, that the Holocene interglacial is cooler than some in the past is quit well supported. To infer that the current temperature is lower than at times during previous interglacial periods may in fact be correct. The current global warmth is likely not unprecedented, but is likely within a degree of being so. Our current scientific understanding is that global temperature is going to exceed 1C-2C in the very near future if we do not curb our fossil fuel dependence in short order. Global temperature could rise 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C etc. over decades and centuries rather than millennia.

Overlapping methodologies (apples & oranges) in reconstructing the temperature record is common practice in science and certainly valid within understood margin for error.

CO2 is higher than at past times mentioned in the article, but the system is not at equilibrium with the resulting forcing. Temps will continue to rise. Greenhouse warming is slow yet persistent and can be masked or enhanced by other climate variables on relatively short time scales.

This article concentrates to much on regional comparisons with CO2 rather than global ones and to much on short time frames. This approach is very common in skeptic arguments.

Agree with some of this, but disagree with some as well.

I see you agree that our current temps, at this point, are quite normal for an interglacial period....correct? And that, the Holocene era on its own, having temps 2C warmer than what we have currently (view the graph), that Co2, so far, has not shown any impact?

The warming trend we have right now began after the LIA, and did not "accelerate" at the start of the Industrial revolution, in fact, it flatlined until about 1880, before rising sharply. Right now, us being in the middle of an interglacial, we are quite COLD compared to what one would expect.

How much warmer should we be right now with 400ppm of Co2...than what we should typically experience? IPCC states, that at least 2C of warming should commence in 100yrs, so I guess the question is, Co2 being 35% higher than any other time in the past 600,000yrs, and Methane being 130% higher...yet temps being COOLEST OF ANY INTERGLACIAL, with NO IMPACT SHOWN ON THE VOSTOK DATA........when should we see this "warming" begin to show? And, could it be that, our temps not deviating from expectations of an Interglacial SO FAR....that perhaps we're mising something,and that CO2 may not have the impact we presume it to have?

As for MWP studies...

1) The region you use to aqquire proxies for MWP, LIA, or whatever, may experience the peak of the warm periods at different times, but the fact is, the MWP in general was Global, and all regions SOMETIME during the timeframe between 750AD to 1350AD, were well warmer than today. Overall, the global impact was a warmer era than what we currently live in, based on higher global treelines, and smaller glaciers on both poles.

2) Big Issue is, in this case, that the Volstok Ice Core suggest temperatures, even earlier in the Holocene Era (our current warm cycle), have been over 2C warmer than our current temperature....and the fact that some of the other cycles have seen 6-10K warmer than what we have now. This was not Co2 related, but yet, do we even know why we were that warm?

And, lets say our super computer formulas on Co2 are wrong... and that maybe the atmosphere is too complicated for us to gauge its reaction?

Its one thing to understand a molecule and its properties, its another thing to understand our vast atmosphere and how it will react through billions of complex inter-relations...where any one of these billion could tramp the AGW theory.

Again, computers cannot properly gause the impact of a 0.038% trace gas via the complex globe & atmosphere.

[BethesdaWX]

He only looked at 51 records, not hundreds. He only used records for the Northern Hemisphere, most above 40N. And of the 51 records, he relied on only some of the 51.

Here is what he has to say about the sub-region temperature trends:

Greenland:

"We can thus conclude with reasonable safety that the MWP in Greenland well exceeded the observed 20th Century warming, though this did not necessarily apply to the Arctic region as a whole."

Central Europe

"The reconstructed temperature variability of the last 12 decades is about 2C, with probably the warmest temperatures observed at the end of the 20th Century. although this is within the uncertainty level of the medieval warmth." [basically, an insufficient number of records to calibrate the MWP in Central Europe.]

China

"Late 20th Century temperatures may be the highest in the last 12 centuries."

North America

"A very sharp warm peak during the MWP occur [sic] c AD 960 with temperature records equaling those of the last two decades."

So of the four Northern Hemisphere sub-regions he looked at, in only one -- the smallest from an areal standpoint -- are current temps below peaks during the MWP.

hehe, why don't you post the rest of what he said?

Or do I have to do it? I'll do it, but thats very sad.

[Mencken_Fan]

video above

CO2 is apparently 30% higher than any other time in the past 600,000yrs, & methane is apparently 130% above any other time in the past 600,000yrs...yet, vostok ice core data demonstrates no temperature variations in correlation....we're actually colder now than any other WP peak by 6-10C

http://wattsupwithth...-earths-future/

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/ch1.php

So what does the future hold in terms of global temperature? The answer is anyone's guess. What we do know, however, is that earth's thermal future can not be validly described by current state-of-the-art climate models that base their simulations on projections of future anthropogenic CO2 emissions. There is just too much real-world evidence to place any confidence at all in what the climate models suggest

I spent considerable time on Google checking out this guy and to my surprise he seems quite the solid character (unlike so many 'skeptics' I discover to be holy rollers or other such quacks.)

His website is large and well produced. I've read a fair amount of his stuff already and though (like with anyone else's work) I don't buy everything right off the shelf - it does seem rationally based.

This brings me to a point I've pondered for a long time now; why is there so much one-sidedness on the subject of global warming? It appears to me that everyone with a strong view takes one side then gives little or no consideration to the other.

With climate change there must be a huge middle ground given the plethora of evidence on each side; yet so few acknowledge this! I would suggest there are far too many "it's my way or the highway" types out there; and y'all are doing yourself no favors.

Well...whatever the case, it's going to be a long, long show; and I intend to enjoy it all. (Easy to say when you're already pushing 60.)

Cheers!

[BethesdaWX]

I spent considerable time on Google checking out this guy and to my surprise he seems quite the solid character (unlike so many 'skeptics' I discover to be holy rollers or other such quacks.

His website is large and well produced. I've read a fair amount of his stuff already and though (like with anyone else's work) I don't buy everything right off the shelf - it does seem rationally based.

This brings me to a point I've pondered for a long time now; why is there so much one-sidedness on the subject of global warming? It appears to me that everyone with a strong view takes one side then gives little or no consideration to the other.

With climate change there must be a huge middle ground given the plethora of evidence on each side; yet so few acknowledge this! I would suggest there are far too many "it's my way or the highway" types out there; and y'all are doing yourself no favors.

Well...whatever the case, it's going to be a long, long show; and I intend to enjoy it all. (Easy to say when you're already pushing 60.)

Cheers!

Thankyou!!!

The reason I'm forced to be known as a "skeptic", goes in tandom with the extreme scenarios being given. I'm sure most of us here believe at least small amount of AGW is indeed taking place...thus I'm technically a 'beliver" in the AGW effect......................problem is...........my opinion that about 0.1C of our warming is/will be due to AGW, all in all...is considered "skeptical" of the Mass 6C warming that the IPCC is "confident" will doom us.

Same goes for the "Ice Age" doomsayers, again, Its always an "End of the World" scenario, or something that would make life harder for us.

After awhile it gets old, and the public is turned off by the false alarmism.

[skierinvermont]

Did you pull your pull your prediction of .1C out of your ass?

You do not have the understanding of physics or the computing power to be making such predictions.

It's also funny how you always dodge around the issue that there is a LARGE energy imbalance occurring because less and less energy escaping the earth's atmosphere precisely at those wavelengths absorbed by CO2. In other words, the rapid accumulation of energy on this planet is directly and empirically attributable to CO2 via satellite measurements. This energy imbalance MUST cause surface warming.

[Mencken_Fan]

You're welcome.

I don't believe the climate of 2050 (much less 2100) can be accurately forecast today. I say this not only because it's likely too difficult to analyze the many variables, but because I doubt we actually even know all the variables today.

That may sound odd but when it comes to human analysis of complex, dynamic systems, we're all too often shocked into a new reality by black swan events. How could I be surprised 5,10, or 20 years from now to hear some presently little-understood process turns out to be a major factor in the final equation? Or perhaps a solar surprise, methane surprise, or what have you.

Even without a black swan, to suppose to know what our climate will be 50 or 100 years from now....oh my!

That said, until I see evidence to the contrary, I believe we're still warming. With 2010 yet another 'hot' year - how can anyone say we're in a "cooling trend"?

2011 will be especially interesting with our cold phase PDO and extended solar minimum reaching the point where we're starting to get past the lag zone. How long til we see books on the next Ice Age? Ha!

Warmer or cooler in the years ahead...I don't know; but it does seem our climate is presently going through some odd gyrations. I hope it doesn't snap!

I've been keeping an eye on the Polar Regions since I've been on the internet (mid '90s) and that alone has been fascinating. (Especially the loss of multi-year ice in the Arctic.) I can't wait to see how our summer melt season progresses!

That's it I guess. Y'all keep on arguing; but please keep it friendly - otherwise you drive the rest of us away.

Safely at 35' above sea level on the southern coast of N.C. I'm immune to the physical effects climate change but I know it may be a serious problem for others. I hope this century works out well for all.

[skierinvermont]

CAT scan please!!!

Did you pull your head out of your ass? I don't give a flippin sh*t about computerized hypothesis basing Co2 on the warming, that is pseudoscience for COC suckers.

And NO, increasing energy storage on earth does NOT "have" to warm the planet... because the energy is being recycled, put away, and naturally balanced....."Heat" isn't even a viable exchange point in this sense! Earth will maintain an equilibrium temperature based on its entire atmospheric content and how it evolves.....NOT based on trace gases alone.

Bottom line, data shows that Co2 has had no noticable effect,and that or warming is Not Unprecedented.

This is the bottom line.

Really? Really?

An accumulation of heat necessarily causes warmth. Heat does not simply disappear. It accumulates. It can be stored in the oceans but it does not disappear. The earth is rapidly gaining heat, which by definition means an increase in mean temperature.

The conservation of energy is one of the fundamental laws of physics.

[BethesdaWX]

Really? Really?

An accumulation of heat necessarily causes warmth. Heat does not simply disappear. It accumulates. It can be stored in the oceans but it does not disappear. The earth is rapidly gaining heat, which by definition means an increase in mean temperature.

The conservation of energy is one of the fundamental laws of physics.

haha

And that, my friend, depends on how you view the spectrum of Co2...if you believe IPCC & their mural range of impact through modeling, then yes you are correct!

Heat does NOT just build up and build up, thats not how earth works.....it is continuously recycled. So, any excess energy is put where it will be dizzolved and have little to no impact on the planet.

[skierinvermont]

haha

And that, my friend, depends on how you view the spectrum of Co2...if you believe IPCC & their mural range of impact through modeling, then yes you are correct!

Heat does NOT just build up and build up, thats not how earth works.....it is continuously recycled. So, any excess energy is put where it will be dizzolved and have little to no impact on the planet.

Sorry you cannot "dissolve energy."

The preservation of energy is a fundamental law of physics.

http://en.wikipedia....ation_of_energy

So very classic. I hope everybody takes note of this. This is as black and white as it gets.

[BethesdaWX]

Sorry you cannot "dissolve energy."

The preservation of energy is a fundamental law of physics.

http://en.wikipedia....ation_of_energy

So very classic. I hope everybody takes note of this. This is as black and white as it gets.

Taking things out of context............FTW!

[skierinvermont]

Taking things out of context............FTW!

No it is not out of context.

I point out that the earth is rapidly accumulating heat due to less and less radiation escaping the earth's atmosphere precisely at those wavelengths absorbed by CO2 (this is directly measured by satellite).

You say.. oh don't worry the earth will "dissolve the energy."

I say.. no it won't that violates a fundamental law of physics. The energy will accumulate in the atmosphere and in the oceans causing rapid warming.

[BethesdaWX]

No it is not out of context.

I point out that the earth is rapidly accumulating heat due to less and less radiation escaping the earth's atmosphere precisely at those wavelengths absorbed by CO2 (this is directly measured by satellite).

You say.. oh don't worry the earth will "dissolve the energy."

I say.. no it won't that violates a fundamental law of physics. The energy will accumulate in the atmosphere and in the oceans causing rapid warming.

huh?

Yes it is taken out of context. "dissolved" is not the same thing as "recycled", or "stored"........as to why you don't understand this...I'm not sure. Earth doesn't just build up energy and get hotter...it doesn't work like that.

I never stated the energy "dissapears", because it doesn't. The argument that the earth is building up energy, thus its getting hotter......that is laughable! Heat may not even be a viable exchange, since thermal exchage between absorbtion of radiation energy, in transfer, cannot "create" heat! There being no increase/change in the energy ENTERING the atmsosphere, the argument that energy continues to build up & overly weight the Ratio/porportion, without increased release lapse rates, is silly.

What happens to the energy is another matter completely. "Heat" is by no means a requirement.

[skierinvermont]

huh?

Yes it is taken out of context. "dissolved" is not the same thing as "recycled", or "stored"........as to why you don't understand this...I'm not sure. Earth doesn't just build up energy and get hotter...it doesn't work like that.

I never stated the energy "dissapears", because it doesn't. The argument that the earth is building up energy, thus its getting hotter......that is laughable! Heat may not even be a viable exchange, since thermal exchage between absorbtion of radiation energy, in transfer, cannot "create" heat! There being no increase/change in the energy ENTERING the atmsosphere, the argument that energy continues to build up & overly weight the Ratio/porportion, without increased release lapse rates, is silly.

What happens to the energy is another matter completely. "Heat" is by no means a requirement.

Then you should have said recycled and not "dissolved."

And yes, a build up of energy necessarily means higher temperatures, unless it is stored as chemical energy, which it isn't. The two main types of energy on earth are chemical energy, and thermal energy and thermal energy determines an objects temperature. So if energy is accumulating on earth, which satellites tell us it is, thermal energy and therefore temperature must rise.

Also what you just wrote is essentially jibberish. What "Ratio/proportion" are you referring to? What do you mean by lapse rates? What do you mean by saying "thermal exchange between absorption of radiation energy, in transfer, cannot "create heat?"" None of that makes any sense. You need to learn how to write and explain yourself. I am familiar with all of the words in your post, and yet the way you have jumbled them together they mean absolutely nothing.

Perhaps somebody else can translate? Is there anybody that understands the precise meaning of his post?

[stellarfun]

Then you should have said recycled and not "dissolved."

....................

Perhaps somebody else can translate? Is there anybody that understands the precise meaning of his post?

I haven't yet found a parrot who understands, let alone can explain, the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FrRNO6t51DMC&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=laws+of+thermodynamics+for+dummies&source=bl&ots=5PHHkWPXmz&sig=Z98iX6SQSj3ql7rQI805_4dkGLk&hl=en&ei=z71KTdeOMcnpgQeG9OzXDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&sqi=2&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Unfortunately, ^^^^^ is not the complete text of the book, but it's a start.

[WeatherRusty]

Bethesda....do yourself a favor and stop digging the hole deeper for yourself. Don't go to far where your knowledge is lacking. You're loosing credibility fast.

[WeatherRusty]

huh?

Yes it is taken out of context. "dissolved" is not the same thing as "recycled", or "stored"........as to why you don't understand this...I'm not sure. Earth doesn't just build up energy and get hotter...it doesn't work like that.

I never stated the energy "dissapears", because it doesn't. The argument that the earth is building up energy, thus its getting hotter......that is laughable! Heat may not even be a viable exchange, since thermal exchage between absorbtion of radiation energy, in transfer, cannot "create" heat! There being no increase/change in the energy ENTERING the atmsosphere, the argument that energy continues to build up & overly weight the Ratio/porportion, without increased release lapse rates, is silly.

What happens to the energy is another matter completely. "Heat" is by no means a requirement.

1) The word dissolved does not belong in any discussion of energy transfer. Neither does the word recycled.

2) In order for the Earth to warm or cool it must either accumulate or loose energy...it does work like that.

3) Any object that is warming is "building up energy". That principle is not laughable.

4) Heat is molecular motion. When a molecule absorbs radiation, the electromagnetic energy absorbed is converted to kinetic energy or heat..(the molecules move about with greater velocity).

5) You are correct that the Earth overall is not receiving more energy from the Sun, therefor solar electromagnetic energy is not warming the Earth. The same amount of energy is entering the atmosphere. What you appear not to understand is that the Earth need not receive more energy in order to warm at the surface. If the surface looses energy more slowly, say due to an increasing greenhouse effect, then that surface will be warmer...and it is. At the same time, since the total energy entering the system is unchanged, the overall temperature of the planet will remain unchanged even as the surface is warmer. This means it must be cooler elsewhere in the system, and that somewhere is the stratosphere which in fact is cooling. So in a sense your idea about increased lapse rate is correct, the overall thermal profile of the atmosphere is warmer below and cooler above when surface warming is due to an increased greenhouse effect.

[beneficii]

huh?

Yes it is taken out of context. "dissolved" is not the same thing as "recycled", or "stored"........as to why you don't understand this...I'm not sure. Earth doesn't just build up energy and get hotter...it doesn't work like that.

I never stated the energy "dissapears", because it doesn't. The argument that the earth is building up energy, thus its getting hotter......that is laughable! Heat may not even be a viable exchange, since thermal exchage between absorbtion of radiation energy, in transfer, cannot "create" heat! There being no increase/change in the energy ENTERING the atmsosphere, the argument that energy continues to build up & overly weight the Ratio/porportion, without increased release lapse rates, is silly.

What happens to the energy is another matter completely. "Heat" is by no means a requirement.

How about you use a term other than "dissolve"? That way we can have a clear idea of what it is you're saying is happening to the excess energy, because none of your posts are clear at all, and apparently they are not clear to others. Even better, directly link to peer-reviewed papers that say what is happening to that excess energy.