Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Kristian's comment
#1
From HERE

  • Kristian says:
    February 5, 2016 at 12:18 AM
    ehak says, February 4, 2016 at 5:47 AM:
    “Kristian thinks a better insulated objected must radiate more. Sure does under the insulating layer. But not on the outside of the insulation.”
  • You’re such a clown, ehak.
  • Your problem is that you don’t look at the available data before spouting your “theoretical” nonsense. Same with the CRUTEM3 vs. CRUTEM4 thing. “Better coverage” in the NH. Yes, then why is the same thing happening to the data in the SH, where there is no “better coverage”? And why only post 1997? Specifically during that abhorred “Pause” that you so badly want to get rid of?
  • Yes, a better insulated object will radiate less out, as a consequence of a (conceptual) larger flux of radiation back in.
    The problem is that we don’t see this happening. Here’s the total DWLWIR ‘flux’ from the atmosphere to Earth’s global surface as estimated by CERES, 2000-2015:
    https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016...dwlwir.png
  • Not really an upward trend, is there? Pretty much UAHv6 and RSSv3.3 tlt, only slightly more negative over time.
    At the same time, here’s Earth’s global surface heat loss through radiation (its ‘net LW’) according to CERES, 2000-2015:
    https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016...lw-sfc.png
  • It has grown considerably LARGER over time (by almost 1.5 W/m^2 in 15 years). Which means it sheds its heat via IR more and more effectively as time goes by. Which does not point to a progressively strengthening radiative insulation, ehak. It points to a progressively weakening radiative insulation of our planet’s global surface.
    While this is all going on, Earth’s global surface apparently, again estimated by CERES, absorbs a larger net solar radiant flux (solar heat, ASR), not a smaller:
    https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016...sr-sfc.png
  • What these data shows, ehak, is that any surface warming, if there is any, cannot be caused by an “enhanced rGHE”. Because it evidently isn’t enhanced. In fact, quite the opposite. And this even as the total concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere went up by 8.4% (2000-2015).
  • The surface now (in 2015) cools more effectively through IR emission than before (in 2000), not less effectively, partly due to a lessening global atmospheric DWLWIR ‘flux’. Which sure doesn’t point to a warming troposphere over the period in question.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#2
From HERE

  • Kristian says:
    February 5, 2016 at 5:17 AM
    ehak,
    “(your CERES ramblings are just incredible like what does increased heat loss from the surface mean if not increased surface temperature? Increased IR from the surface without warming of the surface? Utterly bizarre).”
    Hahaha! You’re just priceless! You don’t understand even the simplest thermodynamical principles, like what ‘net LW’ is, do you, ehak? ‘Net LW’ is the radiant HEAT. From a surface perspective, the Q_out …
    What is better insulation supposed to do? It’s supposed to DECREASE the warm object’s heat loss, in this case the global surface of the Earth. And so, let’s see if you’re able to put two and two together: If the heat loss isn’t decreasing, but rather INCREASING, is the insulation then getting better or worse …?
    The only bizarreness here is your blatant, utter denialism of common physical principles, ehak. Because they don’t fit with your dogma.
    The AGW idea specifically claims that the warming of the surface by an “enhanced rGHE” will come as a result of a DECREASE in the radiant heat loss (‘net LW’), through an INCREASE in total atmospheric DWLWIR to the surface. The heat loss is decreased and so it must warm to increase it BACK to where it were, to restore the balance between in and out (assuming the heat in (from the Sun) stays constant, which it doesn’t …). However, if the heat loss increases BEYOND where it were, then there will be cooling rather than further warming. That would defy the whole idea about “radiative forcing warming”.
    Well, ehak, as CERES shows you, the total atmospheric DWLWIR to the global surface ISN’T increasing. It’s decreasing. And so, as a part result of this, the radiant heat loss from the surface is INCREASING.
    Let’s see once again if you’re able to think this through for yourself. If the surface is warming (and, yes, the global surface indeed warmed from 2000 to 2015), but the DWLWIR is not increasing (rather the opposite) and the surface heat loss through IR is going UP, then it goes without saying that the warming of the surface has got exactly NOTHING to do with any hypothetically strengthened “atmospheric radiative forcing” on the surface. Simply because … it isn’t.
    The radiant heat loss simply isn’t reduced. And the “back radiation” simply isn’t enhanced.
    So what caused the general warming of the global surface from 2000 to 2015? Well, the ASR went up (according to CERES). So that contributes a bit. But not enough. Other surface heat losses besides the radiant one? Yup. Evaporation and conduction. Overall convective efficiency. This is all about dynamic surface processes, basically the oceans, mainly through the ENSO process, but also related surface phenomena like “The Blob”.
    “Repeat: The coverage in the SH increases from 3 to 4.”
    No. This is bullshit talk simply designed to avoid dealing with the glaring problem at hand: The “better coverage” argument is purely a NH one, and yet there is the same pattern of a sudden mean level rise in temp anomaly post 1997 in the SH as there is in the NH going from C3 to C4. And it all for some inexplicable reason starts only when the “Pause” starts. Not before. Funny that, isn’t it? Before 1997 there is a general rise anyway, both versions agree, so why adjust? But after, the rise halts. In C3. Which of course cannot be. And hence the “upgrade” to C4.
    “There is your challenge Kristian. Show us.”
    Hehe, there is no challenge. You’ve got nothing, ehak. I’ve already shown you how the C4 “upgrade” is a bogus upgrade.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#3
From HERE

  • Kristian says:
    February 5, 2016 at 10:23 AM
    You being unable to grasp what I’m talking about doesn’t make it a “bizarre rambling”, ehak. It’s only your cognitive dissonance speaking. Your CD reduction processes furiously at work.
    One more time, especially for you: The global surface of the Earth did warm from 2000 to 2015. But during that very same time, the surface also simultaneously strengthened its cooling ability through IR emission. You hear? It wasn’t weakened, ehak. It didn’t even stay constant. It was strengthened. And substantially so. Also, the DWLWIR went down, not up. Which means one thing, and one thing only: The surface warming CANNOT have been a result of a “radiative greenhouse effect” growing ever stronger as the atmospheric CO2 concentration grows. Because evidently it isn’t … It has to be caused by something else. Period.
    You said of the OLR at the ToA (which is basically Earth’s heat loss to space, directly equivalent to the ‘net LW’ (the radiant heat) from the surface up) that it shouldn’t increase even if the troposphere warmed. Why? Because the troposphere was “better insulated”, and that’s why it warmed.
    Well, then how come ‘net LW’ (the radiant heat loss) from the surface is allowed to increase as it warms? If this is also getting warmer because of “better insulation”? Then your whole postulated warming mechanism is effectively rendered completely useless, after all. Because that’s what it’s supposed to do: reduce the heat loss to force warming.
    Do you see where I’m getting with this? Read the bolded paragraph above once more, then maybe you’ll begin to understand. You cannot have it both ways, ehak. Sorry to disappoint you.
    Everyone with a sound, open, scientific mind reading what I write here and seeing my accompanying plots knows I’m right about the thermodynamics, about the CERES data and its implications for your beloved “AGW hypothesis”, and about the whole CRUTEM3 vs. CRUTEM4 deal. And all reading your posts here know you’ve got nothing left but vitriol. In fact, you never really had anything except your ready-made talking points. No substance, only pure, empty rhetoric.
    It just goes to show you are nothing but a troll [Image: simple-smile.png]
    You still refuse to (properly) answer my two questions about C3 vs. C4 (evasive action is all we get):
    1) Why a “better coverage” rise in C4 above C3 only post 1997-98, when C3 goes flat? And why in sudden jumps? Why not before? Why not gradually all the way from the mid 70s? What’s the physical explanation in your mind?
    2) Why do we see a jumplike rise in C4 above C3 also in the SH, not just in the NH, post 1997, when in the SH there is no “better coverage” argument to be made? And why is this rise at least as significant in the SH as in the NH relative to the mean anomaly range? And again, why not before 1997? What’s going on?
    Can you answer these questions in an adult fashion, ehak? Or are we done here …?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#4
From HERE

  • Kristian says:
    February 6, 2016 at 1:15 PM
    Dum dee dum …
    ehak, it is for you to answer these questions. Because you is the one making the claim that “better coverage” is the simple reason why C4 rises above C3 after 1997, not me.
    Here’s your “better coverage”:
    https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016...vs-c31.jpg
    https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016...-to-c4.png
    (“The blue dots show locations of the 176 stations that were removed in the transition from CRUTEM3 to CRUTEM4. The red dots shows the location of the 628 stations that were added.”)
    As any sane person will conclude from this, in the SH the “better coverage” argument is moot. And yet, the C4 mean temperature rises above the C3 mean temperature in the same manner in the SH as in the NH. Post 1997.
    “Will be interesting. Especially after you stating this:
    The global surface of the Earth did warm from 2000 to 2015.
    You call that corroborated by CERES. Warming was the name.”
    ehak, the world was in La Nina conditions in 2000 and in El Nino conditions in 2015. Of course the global surface of the Earth warmed between the two:
    http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl...0.02/trend
    As you can see, there was also warming from 2000 to 2014, but much less pronounced. Because then we only had ‘near-El Nino’ conditions.
    Here’s the ‘CERES corroboration’ for you:
    https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/pausen.png
    You can try and deny it, but the data speaks for itself [Image: simple-smile.png]
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)