I didn't mean to be secretive. I'm just saying I think the biggest mismatch in these conversations is that you use a different definition of "climate" then everyone else.
I will be G damned. You would think over the past 20 years of this discussion, one of you intelligent types might have informed me. But here you charge right in telling me I don't know a thing I am discussing. I post scientific stuff on this topic but you think I must not read a bit of it. Astounding insult.
Serious question...are you intentionally seeking out the most questionable sources possible or do you really not understand who you are linking to? You do realize this is from Steven Goddard...err...Tony Heller...who is a well known science denier that thinks it's all a big conspiracy and hoax and who doesn't understand even the most basic physical principals. Anyway, I've seen this video before. Let's walk through it point by point. 1. He talks about the global mean surface temperature (GMST) as a steady ~59F and then starts talking about how cold it is in Russia on a particular date. I guess the point he wanted to make was that the GMST can't be 59F because it's cold in Russia? I don't know. That's what it sounded like to me. I'm honestly baffled by the stupidity of that argument and trust everyone on here already realizes the fallacy. 2. He claims that it is hot on Venus because of the Ideal Gas Law (PV=nRT). This is a myth that I still see occasionally. Here's the gist of the argument. Because the pressure (P) on Venus is high that necessarily means the temperature (T) is high as well because they appear on separate sides of the equation. That's all fine and good. The problem is that he claims the high temperature (T) was caused by the high pressure (P). That's absolutely false. The Ideal Gas Law isn't a prognostic equation. It is a diagnostic equation of state. That means it is useful in diagnosing the state of a system. It can be used to derive the value of one variable as long as you know all of the others. However, it cannot be used to determine the evolution of that system because there are other factors or forces in play that drive the state of that system via mechanical work that are not included in the equation. Think about...he claims that the T is high as a direct result of the P going high but he never explains how the P got high in the first place. I could use the exact same argument in reverse and claim that the P is high as direct result of the T going high. Do you see the problem? My argument is just as valid as his. Actually, my argument is the correct one and here's why. Venus' atmosphere had work performed on it in an isochoric process. That means energy was added to the atmosphere but the atmosphere maintained a constant volume. The energy went in to heating the atmosphere and a result the T went up and then P responded accordingly in accordance with the Ideal Gas Law. In other words T leads to P in this case. The increased T also leads to yet more CO2 flux which increases the n (molar mass) which then leads to yet more increase in P. Steven Goddard...err...Tony Heller's argument boils down to Venus undergoing a polytropic process. This is a process where work is performed on the atmosphere by compressing it. The compression leads to a reduction in volume (V) which then leads to an increase in both pressure (P) and temperature (T). That is a process where V leads to P leads to T. But, he never explains how that process could have evolved. The answer is that there is only one way in which it can. That is Venus' gravity must be getting stronger. The only way to compress a planet's atmosphere is for the gravity of that planet to get stronger such that the increased force pulls harder on it and decreases its volume. Yeah, there is literally no physical mechanism by which a planet can spontaneously increase it's gravity. Furthermore, his argument can't explain why Venus' lower atmosphere is so hot while the upper atmosphere is so cold. Remember, the surface of Venus is warmer than that of Mercury even though Mercury is receiving more solar radiation. Similarly, Venus' upper atmosphere is colder than that of Earth even though Earth is receiving less solar radiation. 3. He relates the 95% concentration of CO2 in both Venus and Mercury in an incorrect way. He assumes that the greenhouse gas effect is modulated by the concentration. It's not. It's modulated by the absolute number of CO2 molecules. Afterall, photons are either hitting or missing actual molecules and not percentages of atmospheres. Mars has FAR fewer CO2 molecules than Venus even though their relative compositions are the same in terms of percentages. 4. This is related to #2, but he claims the best way to predict the temperature of a planet is to look at the pressure. But, remember what I said, that argument is a double edged sword. It's just as valid for me to claim the best way to predict the pressure is to look at the temperature. 5. He pulls up a few really old (and I mean really old) articles that claim the greenhouse effect isn't real. His sources are the department of agriculture and then a single article from the monthly weather review in 1901 which he then summarily misinterprets anyway. By the way Steven Goddard...err...I mean Tony Heller still thinks there as been no warming and that Arctic sea ice extents are the same as they were 80 years ago. Is this really the guy you want to be getting your science from?
Here's the other annoying thing with Tony Heller's argument. He says all of the data collected by NASA is fake. But, he then uses NASA as a reliable source of data for temperatures of Venus and Earth to make his arguments. So which is it Tony? Does Earth and Venus have a mean surface temperature and do we know them or not?
I'm saying I don't know what you're discussing, but it doesn't seem to be the same thing that everyone else is discussing. Let me ask series of questions to help me better understand where the breakdown is. 1. Do you understand how a global mean surface temperature is computed? 2. Do you understand how the global mean surface temperature can increase while at the same time the temperature in your backyard can decrease? 3. Do you understand that the different parts of the Earth can warm/cool at different rates and that these rates at specific points can be different than the rate for the entire globe? 4. Do you understand that it can be really hot/cold in your backyard on a particular date or even over the course of a month or year and that it still doesn't really say anything about climate change for your backyard never the entire Earth? 5. Do you understand that the differences in temperatures that are common from one site to another doesn't say anything about climate change?
Pick out some of the Climate alarmists and describe for us their annoying habits and teachings!!!! Be interesting to find out if you will roast them.
A summary he believes and apparently you as well relieves him of any education contained in the videos. Like trying to coast through a university using just cliff notes and skipping classes and books and films.
Look, you can dig as deep into what he said as you wish. I did not hand it to you so I could defend it. I was asked by you for a particular video. I have spent over 30 minutes seeking the video I spoke of. The video I really want you to see does not speak of Venus and the engineer was paid by NASA and as I recall Climate was in his portfolio. Anyway, he came with a fresh look at it and intended his presentation to be laden with science we all can get behind. I shall try today again. I have an extensive amount of Youtube and plan to do it the hard way to locate the video for you. I believe it dates back to perhaps a full year.
Al Gore. His claim that the Arctic would be ice free from 2013 is ridiculous. The science consensus made no such prediction. And why would they? It's a stupid prediction that wasn't grounded on science. In fact, no scientist even made that prediction. That was all his and his alone. And he paid the price for it. And he deserves to be ridiculed for it because he used it as a way of furthering his own self interests.
That was not his claim. He said the new models predicted it as possible, which was correct. You picked that falsehood up from paid, lying bloggers funded by the fossil fuel industry to lie to you. Wrong. It was predicted as possible by the models. What he said was a factual statement, and it was grounded in science. .
Even when i do not agree with you, I do not charge like a bull and declare it does not even slightly make sense. Do you not see you assume an air of superiority? I like to keep things like this as a discussion, not a way to assume power over other posters. You went into a tangent about clothes. Then the lecture of the drought commenced. I was making a point that has stuck with me going back to the 1958 - 62 era. We worked in construction all over this part of CA and were amazed at the wide variety of climate. Back at that time the meteorologists commented on TV and Radio that this part of CA has about 8 climates. People have their hair set on fire when told the temperature will rise 2 degrees. I invite them to allay their fear by a drive around the Bay Area and the envions. I point to those living in Livermore, CA that to cool off all they have to do is get in the car and drive 45 miles to San Francisco to get into a much cooler climate. This was not about wearing arctic boots vs open air strapped footwear. The average temperature of Livermore, CA is 60.3 but at San Francisco 57.3, however and this kicks in the teeth averages, you don't spend your time in an average. During the Summer Livermore can average 72.8 F, yet in June that is 90 and hits over 105 a good many days. San Francisco rarely has hit 100 degrees. Livermore does not have the kind of fog that SF has. This is one reason i hate to speak in averages. It gives you the false illusion that living in Livermore means you will have 73 degree days and you won't be ready for those of 105 and even higher. And using averages one gets the idea that climate wise, being in SF vs Livermore is really about the same thing. But we all know here in the Bay Are that the climate of Livermore vs SF is a huge jump. Livermore is hot. SF is cold.
I stand by what I said. Gore says he got that prediction from Maslowksi. But, Maslowski made no such prediction that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. What Maslowski did say is that using the exponential regression statistical technique the soonest it could possibly be is 2016 with a margin of error of +/- 3 years. Gore took that 2016 value and immediately subtracted 3 years off of it...because...who knows. He also misinterpreted Maslowski's work. You see...Maslowski's paper was actually a summary of different techniques that have been deployed or could be deployed to make Arctic sea ice predictions. So that 2016+/-3 exponential regression figure in his paper is but one among many "predictions" in his paper. Some of these "predictions" are the result of purely statistical models, some are heuristic based models, and some are full global circulation models. He included the exponential regression figure as a way of saying "any prediction can't possibly be any sooner than this because it is the most aggressive one there is". And it certainly wasn't a "model" in the same sense that most people think. Maslowski acknowledges that no reputable scientist would use such a simplistic model to make a real prediction that their reputation would be staked on. In fact, Maslowski immediately, and rightfully so, repudiated Gore for taking his research out of context. Now, I'm no fan of Maslowski. He actually has a history of making pretty aggressive Arctic sea ice predictions himself. It is for this reason that the IPCC declined to include his research in their AR5 report. Simply put...his research wasn't deemed credible enough to include in their report. The fact remains that the scientific consensus on the first ice-free year in the Arctic region will be around 2050. Note that "ice-free" has a specific meaning. It is the occurrence of < 1 million sq km of extent occurring at the peak of the summer melt out which is usually in September. The consensus also tells us that scientists expect Arctic sea ice extents to actually begin rebuilding over the next decade or so before beginning their final descent into "ice-free" territory sometime after 2030. But, that last descent will probably take 20 years to complete.
This is what I mean Robert. You're talking about differences in norms between locations. That's not what we're talking about at all. Let me repeat this in no uncertain terms. When I and most people use the phrase "climate change" it is almost always in the context of global warming. That is the increase in the global mean surface temperature over long periods of time. The changes that occur as a direct result of global warming is "climate change". Global warming does not provide any explanation of why the average temperature from one site to another is different to begin with. In other words, the fact that Livermore is 60.3 while San Francisco is 57.3 is not explained by "global warming" or "climate change". Nor is the fact that the average temperature is different in the winter vs. the summer. AGW can be used as a tool for trying to figure out how smaller regional areas (that include those sites you mentioned) might evolve in the future, but it cannot, by itself, be used to explain why they take on the averages they do today. Furthermore, the concern is not that a 2C difference in temperature at specific moment in time will itself make the Earth uninhabitable. You have to understand that the 2C rise is not an instantaneous value. It is itself an average. Specifically it is a sustained 2C rise over the entire surface area of Earth. This has implications in the thermal expansion of the oceans, large scale agricultural productivity, longterm increases in energy needs, frequency of droughts/floods etc. No one is seriously suggesting that a 2C rise in the temperature in your backyard is going to cause you to keel over and die one morning.
He got it from several sources. Al gore did not say, "ice free year". You are still passing off a falsehood.
In 2007 he said: "Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss." Then in 2008 he said: "The entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in 5 years." So in one statement he said "ice-free" (which means < 1 million sq. km extent) and specifically mentions Maslowski as the source. Then in another statement he says "completely gone" (which means 0 sq. km of extent). It's likely he misused scientific jargon because he didn't understand that "completely gone" and "ice-free" have slightly different meanings. But, based on the timing of these two statements and the fact that he repeatedly cited "US Navy Researchers" in his speeches it is likely he was still referring to Masklowski in this second statement as well. And in 2007 this is what Maslowski actually said. "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate. My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."
And? So far you've said nothing about the impact of climate change. The fact that SF is cooler than Livermore did not affect the drought that CA farmers experienced. It didn't negate the forest fires. It won't do anything to limit the flooding and sliding that unforested land is going to experience. And, let's not get too wedded to the idea that Earth is just a bigger CA.
So what? Were you a different sort of poster, I would be pleased to continue. You toss things at me that we did not discuss.
