Team Deciphers Sea-Level Rise From Last Time Earth’s CO2 Was as High as Today

Also data corrupted by urban heating and using “sea surface temperatures” which have nothing to do with atmospheric re radiation.

 

Ah yes...the conspiracy theory argument. You don't like the observations that are inconsistent with your theory so you ignore them by saying they aren't real, right, or relevant and invoke conspiracy theories to explain how so many of them can be rationalized away.

Even hardened skeptics like Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, etc. reject these conspiracy theories and accept that the Earth really is warming. It's only the most extreme contrarians that believe 150+ years of observations, experimentation, and theory development spanning a broad swath of scientific disciplines is all just one big conspiracy and hoax.

If you disagree then you or anyone is free to publish your own dataset which you feel is devoid of "data manipulation" and various other concerns. No one is stopping you. Judith Curry did it with Berkeley Earth. Spencer and Christy did it with UAH. The only problem is that BEST and UAH both show that the Earth is warming.

 

Thermal energy is temperature.
Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

I agree with convection.

 

Hadcrut data is available online

 

No conspiracy. Just facts. The only data set worth considering is the US data in which ~ 90% of the measurement stations are rural and well away from urban heat contamination. The US data set shows the earth warming at ~ half the rate of the corrupted and incomplete other data sets.

https://www.academia.edu/35571845/D...h_the_most_extensive_peer_reviewed_references

 

No it cannot. See Planck's Law.

Not how it works. See Planck's Law.

No they cannot. Heat does not flow from cold to hot. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Not sure what your point is...

I never said that it was.

Mhm.

I'm not.

 

Correct.

I didn't overlook it.

Correct.

No, the Sun IS part of the system. The Sun-Earth-Space system IS an isolated system.

Not how it works. The Sun-Earth-Space system IS an isolated system.

 

No, it doesn't. Heat cannot be trapped. What your insulation is doing is reducing heat. It is reducing the coupling between the house air and the outside air.

Okay.

Wrong. Heat cannot be trapped.

And here you are making the "Magick Blanket Argument" again. Insulation does not only work in one direction...

You are not slowing or trapping heat. You are simply reducing the coupling between inside air and outside air.

 

Yep. It is an isolated system (well close enough anyway). And the entropy of this system is increasing in perfect harmony with the 2LOT.

However, the atmosphere-only system is experience entropy declines (warming troposphere & cooling stratosphere). But that's okay because the atmosphere is not isolated. The 2LOT does not apply.

 

Hold on...let's clarify some things.

GHGs act as thermal barriers primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum only. They are transparent (mostly anyway) to shortwave radiation, but opaque (mostly anyway) to longwave radiation. This has been confirmed ad-nuaseam via 150 years of thermopile and spectroscopy experiments beginning with Tyndall's experiments in the mid-1800's.

What this means is that in a configuration in which shortwaving radiation is primarily incoming and longwave radiation is primarily outgoing then the thermal barrier will act to impede the flow of heat/energy on the side in which the outgoing radiation originates. This is the prevailing configuration on Earth. The surface side of the barrier warms while the stratosphere side cools.

However, this doesn't mean GHGs thermal barrier is only one-way. It's not. It just means that they are more effective in the infrared spectrum than any other part. So if the spectrum is different between different sides of the barrier then the transport of heat/energy across the barrier will be different on different side.

As an example of this consider what happens in central Antarctica in the dead of winter. The stratosphere is often warmer than the surface. What this means is that downwelling IR is higher than the upwelling IR for that isolated region and in accordance with Planck's law, Wein's displacement law, and any other thermodynamic law you want to invoke here. The effect here is that GHGs actually work to COOL the surface...again in this small isolated region and only at specific times. This effect has been confirmed by observations.

The point...the GHG effect isn't strictly one-way. It only behaves that way on a global scale in Earth's atmosphere because of the way in which the radiation flows are typically configured.

 

Just to clarify...when I say "trap" I am specifically talking about the scenario in which a thermal barrier acts to cause the temperature on one side to achieve a higher equilibrium value than it would have otherwise without the barrier. We can use whatever terminology you are least offended with...I don't really care...just as long as we are talking about the same thing.

 

Do you feel that < 2% of the total area of Earth provides a good proxy for the global mean?

Corrupted? Incomplete? Which dataset that publishes a global mean temperature do feel satisfies your concerns?

 

There are no good proxies for a global average temperature. The US data is the best regional data set. Everything else is corrupted with regard to making any quantitative statement with any reasonable certainty on the magnitude of global warming.

 

What is conspiratorial about the hard evidence of having folks artificially manipulate data point to achieve their results? Its in the public domain already.

And frankly, to put a super fine point on it, we all recognize that the climate has temporarily modified itself, again. The chant, once again, It has, it does, and it alway will change. The hoax, if you really need it identified for you, again, is that anyone has any data that creates a demonstrable, repeatable experience that shows it's in any way related to either elevated CO2 levels, or, more insidiously, man made.

The real observation here is that half truth interpretations, like the ones that you've attempted above, still don't get you to the place that demonstrates that a naturally warming climate is otherwise being influenced by anything other than nature. You cannot have it both ways here.

So, because you don't like the inconvenient truth of this, you start name calling in a futile attempt to discredit others who point it out to you.

 

Do you even know what that means? I highly doubt that....

 

This is what I call "nuh-uh-ing" your way around inconvenient observations.

But if you disagree, then just know that a Nobel Prize is waiting for you if you can convincing show how dozens of datasets using wildly different techniques and subsets of data maintained by independent groups and reviews by thousands of people on daily basis all ended up with corrupted datasets.

Here are a list of datasets that might be useful for you to review as part of your attempt to nullify all of it...

NASA GISS - surface station
NOAA GlobalTemp - surface station
HadCRUT - surface station
Cowtan&Way - surface station
Berkeley Earth - surface station
UAH - satellite
RSS - satellite
AIRES - satellite
STAR - satellite
RATPAC - balloon
IGRA - balloon
ECMWF/ERA - reanalysis
ECMWF/20th Century - reanalysis
MERRA - reanalysis
CERRA - reanalysis
NCEP/NCAR - reanalysis
NCEP/DOE - reanalysis
NOAA 20th Century - reanalysis
CFSR - reanalysis
JRA - reanalysis
ASR - reanalysis
ARGO - ocean
ICOADS - ocean
AMSR - ocean
COBE - ocean
HadSST - ocean
ERSST - ocean

...and that's not even exhaustive. I know of no dataset that shows anything other than a warming trend post WWII. Literally...none.

 

They all show warming. No one disputes that qualitative statement.

 

HERETIC!

 

Because there's no evidence that it is happening on even an individual basis nevermind on every single entire dataset in existence. And yes, most of them are in the public domain so you are free to review them just like the thousands of other experts do on a daily basis. Let me guess...you'll proceed immediately to your fake news sites and blogs and won't even both with reading the academic literature right?

And go ahead...bring up the fake news about Karl fraudulently manipulating NOAA GlobalTemp...you're going to anyway. I don't mind rehashing how the Daily Mail article was fake news, the fact that they retracted their fraud claim, how Karl was investigated and cleared, how Bates was actually the one who didn't follow the review process that he was in charge of and which he accused Karl of, and how if you remove all of Karl's legitimate adjustments you actually end up with an even higher warming trend, how dozens of other datasets come to the same basic conclusion, etc. But, yeah, we can rehash all that if you want.

 

Thanks, but I prefer blasphemer.

 

All the data is manipulated.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/05/corrupting-australias-temperature-record/

 

Correct, yet you try to deny that below...

Now you've eliminated the sun... Where is your energy coming from?

But more importantly, you're still attempting to have heat flow uphill... The stratosphere cannot heat the troposphere. Colder air cannot warm the surface of the Earth. Absorption converts light into thermal energy which gets convected and conducted upwards to colder regions.

 

The Sun. The Sun is outside the boundaries of the atmosphere. That means when you analyze the atmosphere by itself you cannot apply the 2LOT.

No I'm not. I'm not saying that the stratosphere warms the troposphere on a global scale. I don't believe that and I don't want other people to believe it either. That makes this a strawman argument.

What I said was that the Sun warms the troposphere. And because there is a thermal barrier that is allowing the energy of the Sun to penetrate down to the surface, but impedes the flow of energy away from the surface then the surface must achieve a higher equilibrium temperature than would otherwise be possible.

In the same manner the insulation in my home allows the energy from natural gas to penetrate to the inside, but impedes the flow of energy away from the inside. As a result the inside of my home achieves a higher equilibrium temperature than would otherwise be possible.

Neither thermal barrier whether it be typical residential insulation or GHGs violate the 2LOT. Now you can argue that these are fundamentally different thermal barriers because residential insulation impedes the transport of heat via convection, conduction, and radiation whereas GHGs only impede heat transport via radiation. But the analogy isn't about specific heat transport mechanisms. It's about showing how the flow of heat to the other side of the barrier can be impeded in general and why it does not violate the 2LOT.

 

No it hasn't. It warmed rapidly in the 1910-1945 period, cooled in the 1945-1975 period, then warmed again in the 1975-1998 period. It has been flat since 1998.

It's self-evidently fake because it hasn't been getting warmer. All the warming is in the data tampering. Look:


NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/[/quote]
That graph actually shows temperature RISING from 1946-1975, when all the contemporaneous data showed dramatic cooling. The data have simply been falsified retroactively to remove the proof that the CO2 theory has been conclusively falsified.

Right: an INDEX that has been cherry-picked, manipulated, smoothed, adjusted, weighted, averaged, blah, blah, blah, to make it conform to the proved-false CO2 theory of global temperature.

Blah, blah, blah. Hansen et al. 'Nuff said.