Open thread on climate ideas

Posted: December 1, 2011 by tallbloke in climate

Open thread for ideas and comments about climate and climate science.

Comments
  1. adolfogiurfa says:
    December 1, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a beverage and you´ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it. CO2 solubility in water decreases with temperature.
    CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale = The oxygen we breath in.
    CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
    There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases” are gases IN a greenhouse, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated so as not to lose its heat so rapidly. If the greenhouse effect were to be true like the window panes in a greenhouse then those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, then there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
    CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2)
    We are made of CARBON and WATER.
    The air can not hold heat as water does: its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
    This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
    Global Warmers models expected a kind of heated CO2 “piggy bank” to accumulate in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it can not.
    If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.

  2. Joe Lalonde says:
    December 1, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Tallbloke,

    Scientists created an area of mass confusion. Including heat with CO2 or excluding it during experimentation with the gas alone.
    Laboratories did not consider many factors in experimentation which ruined a true understanding of our planet. A move for the simple one calculation for the whole planet was foolishness when regionally every area is unique.
    Temperatures are generated by cause and effect by many factors. Much of theses factors deal with motion, planetary shape, tilting, composition of atmosphere, angles of solar heat penetration, evaporation, precipitation, pressure, etc.
    Many areas do not generate a heating or cooling effect but do effect the circulation.
    Planetary tilting effects the solar penetration of degrees of our planet and also the time of lack of solar penetration. Time of night and day changes at a slow rotation speed in the higher latitudes can vastly change the angle of solar heat even touching the planet.
    Many areas of science have generate very similar mistakes. Time travel, dimensional shifting, quantum physics, etc. never considered motion such as location or rotation. Just straight point to point mind setting. This then makes the area of science incorrect. But who will listen?
    The scientists getting paid for experimenting in bad theories will NEVER state they made a mistake nor will the politician paying for their bad experiments.

  3. malagaview says:
    December 1, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    the warming during it’s positive phase in the late C20th

    The latest WUWT posting shows that they had to start Hiding the Decline in the 1940s….
    The logical corollary is that they had to start Manufacturing the Incline in the 1940s…
    The analysis of the Team’s temperature datasets clearly shows far reaching data manipulation in support of their narrative.

    The Team relies upon approved datasets when it comes to historic temperatures.
    The Team relies upon approved datasets when it comes to historic CO2 levels.

    Personally, I do not trust anything endorsed by The Team…
    My default view is to always look for independent verification…
    The independent sources frequently tell a different story…
    So the settled data and the settled science are not settled.

    So my worthless advice is: Ask No Questions – Hear No Lies.

  4. adolfogiurfa says:
    December 1, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    @Tallbloke: Ok. As “natural variability” involves first and before all, Sun´s activity, which is now relatively high, there is enough room for the CO2 warmists´ mantra until we reach the forecasted long lasting decline of cycle 24 (from 12 to 13 years).

  5. malagaview says:
    December 1, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    No arguments…

    However, I do have a question [which I know I should not ask]…
    But [here goes anyway]

    Are you certain that atmospheric CO2 does not help cool the Earth?

    The reason I ask is that it looks like the Water Cycle provides an upper limit to Global Warming…
    However, the historic records indicate that Global Cooling is far more of a problem for planet Earth…

    Personally, I would really like to understand:

    HOW DOES THE EARTH STAY SO COOL?

    The Moon
    According to Wikipedia the Maximum Surface Temperature at the Lunar equator is 116.85 C [390K]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
    Set Tmax_m = 116.85 C

    The Earth
    According to Wikipedia the Maximum Surface Temperature on Earth is 57.8 C [331K]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
    Set Tmax_e = 57.80 C

    The Maths
    Tdif = Tmax_m – Tmax_e = 116.85 – 57.80 C = 59.05 C

    The Difference
    The maximum temperature on Earth is 59.05 C cooler than the maximum temperature on the Moon.

    Explaining the Difference
    1) The atmosphere of the Earth facilitates cooling via a phenomenon known as The Weather which is primarily driven by density differences in temperature and moisture. The Weather not only cools the surface of the Earth but it also reduces the level of incoming solar radiation at the surface [mainly via a phenomenon known as clouds] and it additionally reduces heating by reflecting incoming solar radiation [mainly via the phenomenon known as clouds and accumulated snow]. The Weather is a complex phenomenon that is not fully understood and is difficult to predict [especially in mid-latitudes].
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather

    2) Approximately 71% of the Earth surface is covered by Water [in the form of rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans] and the Earth’s atmosphere typically contains between 1% and 4% water vapour near the surface. The presence of Water on [and above] the Earth`s surface significantly alters the thermodynamic properties of the Earth [when compared to the Moon]. The Water Cycle [hydrologic cycle] involves the exchange of heat energy [which leads to temperature changes and The Weather] and is the major cooling agent for the Earth.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceans
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

    3) The Weather causes water to be precipitated onto the land surface of the Earth and the distribution of precipitation determines the distribution of plant life that covers approximately 9.4% of the Earth’s surface. Plant life also contributes to the cooling of the Earth surface temperature by absorbing and reflecting incoming solar radiation and by contributing to the Water Cycle through transpiration.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpiration

    4) The Axial Tilt of the Earth [currently about 23.5 degrees] varies over time and is an important factor governing the intensity of solar radiation received by any single location on the Earth’s surface. The Axial Tilt influences the density differences in temperature and moisture around the globe and determines the Weather phenomenon know as Seasons.
    The Axial Tilt effects upon temperature are not fully understood or quantified.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasons
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    5) The Lunar day [27.321582 days] is longer than an Earth day [0.99726968 days].
    The shorter day on Earth limits the duration of direct surface heating via solar radiation.
    A longer Earth day would facilitate increased maximum surface temperatures where there is a lack of surface water i.e. hot deserts.
    A longer Earth night would facilitate greater nigh time cooling and more extreme minimum temperatures
    The Length of Day effects upon temperature are not fully understood or quantified.

    6) The orbit of the Moon [around the Earth] takes it closer to the Sun than the Earth.
    However, the Moon is only closer to the Sun by 0.0027 AU [406,700 km] and any difference in incoming solar radiation is insignificant.

    Conclusions
    Our understanding of how the Earth is cooled [primarily by The Weather in our atmosphere] is not fully understood or quantified.

    However, it is evident that the Settled Science hypothesis that the CO2 greenhouse gas is heating the Earth [and thus preventing a Snowball Earth via CO2 induced Global Warming] is clearly incorrect and unsupportable.

    Additionally, it should be noted that the historic records indicate that Cooling and Ice Ages are recurrent features of the Earth’s climate that we should be worried about [not CO2 driven Global Warming].

  6. malagaview says:
    December 1, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    adolfogiurfa says: December 1, 2011 at 12:39 pm
    Joe Lalonde says: December 1, 2011 at 1:11 pm
    BRAVO! Wonderfully written… in total agreement.

  7. Roger Andrews says:
    December 1, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    TB:

    “but temps have been pretty much flat since 1998”. True in the ocean. SSTs show no recent warming. But not true of air temperatures, which have increased by about 0.3C since 1998.

    As I’ve discussed in other posts, this result is compatible with CO2 heating the air but not the sea, which seems to be heated entirely by the sun (i.e. no back radiation, you’ll be pleased to hear)

    So how much did CO2 contribute to the late 20th century warming? If we use air temperatures to define “warming” my best guess is that it contributed most of the 0.3C observed. But if we use SSTs we can reasonably conclude that it didn’t contribute any because the SSTs show no warming over this period.

    So it all comes down to which metric we use to define “warming” – and we get two quite different results depending on whether we use air temperatures or SSTs.

    So which one to use? Well, we have to use both.

    But we shouldn’t use “combined” series like HadCRUT3 that average air temperatures and SSTs together. Such series are pretty much worthless for attribution studies.

  8. Retcomteq says:
    December 1, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    Tallbloke,

    I have a suggestion for discussion on your open thread:

    Vostock Ice Cores and Falling CO2 Levels

    Looking at the Vostock Ice Core Record graph () there are at least five major, and many minor, peaks of roughly coinciding changes in temperature and CO2 levels over the 400,000 odd years of the samples.

    Momentarily separating this discussion from the other important question of which came first, temperature rise/fall or CO2 rise/fall, the aspect I would like to focus on is the almost instantaneous (in geological terms) changes in direction from rapidly rising levels to rapidly falling levels.

    The Anthropogenic Global Warming logic of positive feedback causing the CO2 to rise, in what becomes an exponential manner, implies that any time the plot rose it should have kept on rising and not fallen back. It should have continued to rise until all the free carbon had been combined with oxygen forming a CO2 rich atmosphere.

    Surely if the rise was mainly or wholly due to positive feedback, each and every single one of these maxima, however small, should have all resulted in the start of an exponential rise in atmospheric CO2? Thus realizing the “Runaway Green House Effect”, the nightmare AGW scenario.

    Obviously nothing of the sort happened, so some other factor must have been in play and the rise in CO2 cannot be justified by positive feedback alone.

    For the chart of the increasing CO2 to change into a steeply falling slope must have required an opposing force of far greater negative value than the force initially driving the rise. No cause has ever been suggested.

    It would seem more reasonable that the CO2 (and temperature) levels fell due to the sudden lessening or ceasing of the real original cause driving both the CO2 and temperature.

    I may be going over old ground here, but on my wanderings around the blogs and comment pages I don’t think that I have seen the specific aspect of falling historic CO2 levels talked about, only in general terms that the current rise in trace levels of CO2 cannot be catastrophic – to which I strongly agree.

    I hope this is useful and that it may start an interesting thread.

    [a lot has been discussed on the Talkshop, try search for much reading. We can revisit the subject, preferably with a new take –Tim]

  9. Zeke says:
    December 1, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    Meanwhile, in Durban SA
    Scientists worried about ocean health
    58 minutes ago
    Scientists have called for ocean warming to be taken seriously during climate change talks.

    Global heat may hide in deep oceans
    US to track Arctic acidification
    Arctic sea ice second lowest on record

  10. tallbloke says:
    December 1, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    Retcomteq: great first contribution. The problem with the feedback scenario you raise is why I’ve said on the glacial climate thread that the feedback must be less powerful than the forcing which initiates the start and end of interglacials. My personal view is that in addition to the Milankovitch cycles (eccentricity, obliquity and precession) there is likely an additional factor. This is probably to do with ocean heat content, changes in flow of major currents and as a result of that, cloud cover.

  11. stefanthedenier says:
    December 2, 2011 at 1:18 am

    98 was the warmest for two reasons: reason 1] 98 was the year following Kyoto Conference = to scare the crap out of the public. Reason 2] in 99, when the prudent leading Warmist realized that is going to be a long road to brainwash everybody… if they increased the temperature every year as from 97 to 98 = the planet will boil until they create enough Zombies – therefore, they lowered the temperature for the following years. In the process they created reason 3, created enough water pistols for the Skeptics – to fight the Propagandist. Nobody knows the temperature with plus/minus 5⁰C inaccuracy – to save his life. The temperature in the atmosphere is 3dimentional and shifts altitude, longitude latitude, every 19-15minutes. When one states: the WHOLE planet is warmer by 0,2⁰C, is only symbol of ignorance, or he/she is targeting the ignorant.

  12. stefanthedenier says:
    December 2, 2011 at 1:39 am

    If CO2 had any affect on the climate; would have being same climate from east to west coast of USA or Australia, with evenly distribution of CO2. Instead has 50 different climates. Because H2O controls the climate, not CO2. Around Kyoto city is 1000% more CO2 than around Sahara, or Australian deserts, but has better climate. For changing the climate, doesn’t need any phony GLOBAL warming. You can travel from east to west coast of USA or Australia in a week and encounter 50different climates. Did 25 GLOBAL warmings happened in that one week. Unless the ‘’pretend Skeptics’’ realize that climatic changes have nothing to do with GLOBAL warmings / coolings = they are as guilty as the Warmist!
    If you don’t know what is good climate, ask the trees. They don’t tell lies; they don’t have Jujitsu air-conditioners. Amazon rainforest has more CO2, than the desert. In Amazon rainforest the winds bring CO2, same as in the desert + the fungi release CO2 from rotting leafs, twigs, branches, logs and roots (all rainforest is CARBON NEUTRAL).
    Warmist greatest achievement is ”confusing the ignorant” that climatic changes and the phony GLOBAL warmings / coolings are related… 2] making the ignorant to believe that: localized warmings / coolings were GLOBAL. The laws of physics don’t permit GLOBAL warmings; or GLOBAL coolings.

  13. tallbloke says:
    December 2, 2011 at 6:54 am

    And here’s one Stefan left in the wrong thread:
    Submitted on 2011/12/02 at 12:53 am
    CHALLENGE TO ALL COMENTERS, TO FIND BETTER ANSWERS

    Q: do you know that: oxygen + nitrogen are 998999ppm in the troposphere, CO2 only 260-400ppm? Q: do you know that O+N expand /shrink INSTANTLY in change of temperature? Q: do you know that where they expand up on the edge of the troposphere is minus – 90⁰C? Q: why O+N expand more, when warmed by 5⁰C, than when warmed by 2⁰C? A: when warmed by 5⁰C, they need to go further up, to intercept more extra coldness to equalize. Q: if O+N are cooled after 10minutes to previous temperature, why they don’t stay expanded another 5 minutes extra? A: not to intercept too much extra coldness, to prevent too much cooling. A2: they stay expanded precisely as long as they are warmer – not one second more or less – that’s how they regulate to be same warmth units overall in the troposphere, every hour of every year and millennia! Q: do you know that: if troposphere warms up by 2⁰C extra – troposphere expands up into the stratosphere by 1km, how much extra coldness is there to intercept? A: intercepts extra appropriate coldness to counteract the extra heat in 3,5 seconds > that extra coldness falls to the ground in minutes

    Q: if O+N are warmed extra for 30minutes, why they don’t shrink after 15minutes, or after one day? A: if O+N after cooled to previous temperature; stayed expanded for a whole day extra > they would have redirected enough extra coldness to freeze all the tropical rivers / lakes. Q: can CO2 of 260-400ppm prevent oxygen + nitrogen (998999ppm) of expanding when they warm up? A: O+N when warmed extra – they expand through the walls of a hi-tensile hand-grenade. Q: do you believe in the laws of physics, or in IPCC and the Warmist cult? The laws of physics say: part of the troposphere can get colder than normal – only when other part gets warmer than normal. B] if the WHOLE troposphere gets colder > air shrink > intercepts less coldness on the edge of the troposphere > retains more heat and equalizes in a jiffy. C] both hemispheres cannot get warmer simultaneously for more than few minutes – if they doo > troposphere expands extra > intercepts extra coldness and equalizes in a jiffy. Q: do the O+N wait to warm up by 2-3⁰C, before start expanding, or expand instantly extra when they warm up by 0,000001⁰C? Mitich formula: EH>AE>ECI (Extra Heat >Atmosphere Expands >Extra Coldness Intercepts) Tons of extra CORECRT proofs: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com

  14. Richard111 says:
    December 2, 2011 at 7:25 am

    I agree with malagaview. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere tend to cool the planet. Incoming solar radiation is full blackbody spectrum even if TSI is reduced to 121C. CO2 can absorb all available bands of energy thus shielding the planet below to some extent from those specific bands of radiation.
    Outgoing radiation is purely longwave IR at around 15C and the only effective working band for CO2 is the 15 micron band. This is the only band that can provide the to warmists imaginary “backradiation” warming effect.
    So while the sun is shining CO2 is helping to limit incoming energy far in extent of its night side absorbance in the 15 micron band.
    This same argument can be applied to water vapour, H2O, which has many, many more bands of absorbance/emmitance.
    Even applying the warmists strange idea of half backradiation, greenhouse gases can only COOL incoming solar energy as far as the surface of the planet is concerned.

  15. malagaview says:
    December 2, 2011 at 10:21 am

    A wonderful comment from crosspatch over at WUWT regarding CAGW Science

    Because the whole thing is working exactly backwards from how it is supposed to work. Rather than noticing any extreme climate change, sea level rise, atmospheric heating, etc. and attempting to come up with a hypothesis that describes why that might be happening, they trotted out a hypothesis first … that greenhouse gasses would warm the planet … and have been attempting to make the data fit. So the observational data are being made to fit the hypothesis rather than the hypothesis being developed to fit the observation. It is absolute lunacy. GISS and CRU develop models that show how the planet would warm and are also responsible for the temperature data bases that would verify the models. It’s nuts. AND those very models are responsible for them getting millions of dollars to their institutions for research grants and jaunts to Tahiti.

    Hiding the decline down under – inconvenient papers censored

    Personally, I go a lot further:
    They trotted out a hypothesis first … that greenhouse gasses would warm the planet …
    and have been attempting to make the science and the data fit.

    The point made by Richard111 regarding greenhouse gases is that they cool the planet’s surface by trapping some of the incoming solar radiation in the atmosphere. Normally we say: What goes up must come down. However, in the case of solar radiation: It must come down before it can go up.

    The point made by Stefan regarding the thermal expansion and cooling of gases in the atmosphere is exactly right. The thermodynamic properties of air and H2O keep the Earth cool… that is 59.05 C cooler than the Moon that is lacking both water and air. Luckily we also have huge oceans of water which act as a energy buffer that helps moderate extremes.

    Looking at the historical temperature record it is clear that interglacial periods have a maximum temperature. This is because the Earth has a very efficient cooling mechanism.

    The cooling is so efficient that the Global Warming we experience each and every single DAY never exceeds 57.8 C [the maximum temperature recorded on Earth] and at NIGHT the Earth switches into Global Cooling mode ready for the next day. Global Warming starts to disappear as soon as the sun goes down.

    Our problems arise when the daily Global Warming is LESS than nightime Global Cooling.

  16. malagaview says:
    December 2, 2011 at 10:32 am

    Wonderful article in the Spectator about data fitting.

    In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’

    This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong (whose record is contradicted by four other nearby tide gauges). Why does it show such a rise? Because like many of the 159 tide gauge stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it is sited on an unstable harbour construction or landing pier prone to uplift or subsidence. When you exclude these unreliable stations, the 68 remaining ones give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1mm a year.
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml

    H/T crossptch

  17. Joe Lalonde says:
    December 2, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Waaaaaa….I posted on the wrong thread!

    The assumption game of averaging. Useful if all the parameters are the same but an orb has a very different parameter to solar heat. A satellite hugs the planet, so it does not record the differences in velocities or sizes from a distance of planetary rotation.
    I see a vast number of mistakes by the assumption of using an average on a planet.
    This average then assumes the planet is a cylinder rather than an orb.
    It misses a vast number of areas that should have been considered but the averaging disallows this.
    From solar rays of the sun, distance differences, angle of solar penetration and time of solar heat dispersion are NOT considered.
    The differences of velocities is the cause. The angles are NOT uniform in changing from the equator to the poles.
    See reference:

    Click to access world-calculations.pdf

    Click to access world-calculations-2.pdf

  18. tallbloke says:
    December 2, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    MV:The thermodynamic properties of air and H2O keep the Earth cool… that is 59.05 C cooler than the Moon that is lacking both water and air.

    Errrm, it’s not so warm on the backside of the moon though… One of the main differenes between Moon and Earth is that Earth spreads the warmth of the Sun via the atmosphere. The argument goes that the surface would be colder if we had no GHG’s in the atmosphere.

  19. malagaview says:
    December 2, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Errrm, it’s not so warm on the backside of the moon though…

    And it would not be so warm on Earth if our DAY was 27.321582 days long!

    The LENGTH OF DAY is a very important temperature variable…
    Longerrrrr nights and its more cooling… just like the Moon…. Brrrrrrrrr….
    Longerrrrr days and the Earths daytime temperature still maxes out at 57.8 C

    The maximum temperatures in interglacials always hit the same glass ceiling…
    Which is very ironic for the believers in AGW Greenhouse Gas scare 🙂 🙂 🙂

  20. malagaview says:
    December 2, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Global Cooling continues for about an hour after sunrise….
    Without our daily hit of solar Global Warming we would be frozen…
    Although another F-word would be a better description 🙂

    There is an old, though erroneous, saying that it is “darkest before the dawn.” Actually, the darkest time is at mid-night (not midnight), the halfway point between sunset and sunrise. A similar adage expresses the belief that it is coldest just before dawn and begins to warm with the appearance of dawn’s first light, but observations and physical theory show us that the coldest hour of the day is not before dawn but often an hour or so after sunrise.
    http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/science_sky/114711

  21. malagaview says:
    December 2, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    One of the main differences between Moon and Earth is that Earth spreads the warmth of the Sun via the atmosphere.

    The main difference between the Moon and the Earth is that the Earth incorporates a refrigeration system.



    The argument goes that the surface would be colder if we had no GHG’s in the atmosphere.

    The reality is that the surface would be WARMER if we had no GHG’s in the atmosphere.
    Just think of those white fluffy clouds of GHGs reflecting and absorbing sunlight.

  22. tallbloke says:
    December 2, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Heh!
    OK MV, I’ll give you that round. If we include the amazing and enigmatic ability of global h2o to create just the right amount of opacity to keep the Earth tenable, then you’re right.

  23. stefanthedenier says:
    December 3, 2011 at 12:02 am

    dear Malagaview, if you rely on Wikipedia for correct /complete informations – you definitely need help; I will help point you few facts; the difference between earth / moon temperature, as I did to our top science reporter in Australia:

    Dr. Karl from ABC was comparing the temperature on the moon and the earth is different. ‘’Approximate temperature on the moon is(-14] on the earth (+15] because of the CO2 cloud, he says. Same distance from the sun, but different temperature, because planet earth has CO2, the moon doesn’t. He was getting big applause from the audience for his ‘’scientific’’ discovery. So, carbon is guilty for the difference in the temperatures! Or is it? 1]: Between the unlimited coldness of minus – 90⁰C and the ground on the moon is one inch. On the earth between that unlimited coldness and the ground + the surface of the sea is 30km of the BEST INSULATORS, made from oxygen and nitrogen, TRANSPARENT to the sunlight, so the sunlight can get to the ground, but not the unlimited coldness.*

    2. I pointed to him an experiment: take two woolen socks out of boiling water; pin one on your shirt to imitate the surface of the planet. The other (smaller) sock stick on a one meter long stick; hold the stick in your stretched arm and start spinning around yourself, fast; so that the second, the smaller sock imitates the orbit of the moon. On a very cold night, because the space the moon and earth are travelling through is -90°C below zero. Fact that the moon travels twice as fast than the earth in that unlimited coldness is conveniently overlooked as anything that does not fit the Con Job. Why is it so, Dr. Karl? I need to apologize to the quack, if both socks cool simultaneously. If the sock on the stick cools first, Dr. Karl should apologize to the nation for feeding them bull, to promote Kyoto Protocol’s sick, misleading propaganda. B] one sock cool out the window of your car when travelling 50km. an hour, the other when travelling 100km. The moon travels twice as fast than the earth through that unlimited coldness.

    C] On the planet lots of nitrogen and oxygen, they are perfect insulators; but because they are transparent, they let through the sunlight that radiates heat. At the same time, they are shielding the planet from the cosmic coldness, where on the edge of the stratosphere is minus (-90°C). That same coldness on the moon is ankle high from the ground. Did Dr. Karl take the temperature on the moon at ankle high, to compare the difference in the temperature on the planet earth’s ankle deep in the stratosphere, or on the planet’s surface, where there is a many kilometers thick perfect insulator of O+N ABOVE, as a real Greenhouse? Yes, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, oxygen and nitrogen are greenhouse gases! Because CO2 intercepts big part of sun’s radiation high up; where cooling is much more effective. Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to the sunlight, same as glass roof of a normal greenhouse. Then cooling of the warmed air on the ground is slowed by O+N as perfect insulators – same as glass roof on normal greenhouse slows cooling.

    3] No thermal heat on the moon to add to warming the water on the sea bottom, one kilometer deep down. If you dig 2km deep in the soil on the planet is +35 / 40° C. Same heat is constantly released in the bottom of the seawater. Heat in the deep seawater is accumulative, above the seawater is 50km of O+N, perfect insulators from the heavenly coldness. Thermal warmth, from the water takes many months to be released = is accumulative. On the moon, the surface is in DIRECT contact with the coldness of minus -90⁰C. 4] On the moon, if you go 100m deep in the soil, you will find temperature close to ultimate zero, Calvin (NASA will be for a big shock, I am never wrong) So, the difference in the earth soil and in lunar soil is about 270 degrees. Dr. Karl can point that difference of temperature is not only few degrees, but over 270 degrees difference between the moon and the earth’s soil (is it because of CO2 released by his biggest supporters by burning marijuana on the earth, but not on the moon? Tell us Dr. Karl) 5] The earth has about 1,359 billion cubic kilometers of water. That water is constantly warmed from below by the thermal heat. Warmed by the sunlight, but in same time protected by the oxygen and nitrogen from the coldness of minus -90⁰C. Not much water on the moon. Nobody, nobody can accuse Dr. Karl of comparing apples with oranges, because he is comparing apples with a watermelon. Dr. Karl, with brilliant intelligence; why does he have to tell lies? If it was real global warming – you wouldn’t need lies as proofs. Ask yourself: why all of them have to tell lies – to expose themselves to ridicule – if they had a single genuine proof of their Global Warming?!?! Dr. Karl is a liar, liar, with the pants on fire! Sorry tallbloke for the long text, I just pasted it from my website: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com

  24. Richard111 says:
    December 3, 2011 at 8:04 am

    malagaview says:
    December 2, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    I have tested that! I put out a half square metre sheet of mild steel 3mm thick and and bolted a thermocouple sensor to the middle of the sheet. The steel was raised about a foot off the ground and supported on a much larger sheet of 4 inch thick polystyrene insulation. What I found was that during the day the sheet was much hotter than the air but cooled to ambient during the night.
    At dawn, if sky was cloudless and beginning to show blue, but before the sun was over the horizon, the temperature of the steel sheet rose before the local air temperature by as much as 2C.
    This implies to me that “scattered sunlight” at dawn is actually providing some heating even though we ourselves can’t feel it.

  25. malagaview says:
    December 3, 2011 at 9:35 am

    Richard111:
    This implies to me that “scattered sunlight” at dawn is actually providing some heating even though we ourselves can’t feel it.

    That is exactly as I see it…

    I have tested that!

    Brilliant!
    Now that is what I call REAL Science using REAL observations…

    There are observations for the EARTH and the MOON…
    So there is an opportunity to do some REAL Science.

  26. Joe Lalonde says:
    December 4, 2011 at 1:41 am

    Tallbloke,

    I can finally prove how climate scientists, mathematicians and others created a cylindrical planet by generation of the single calculation for the whole planet.
    In order to do this, many measurements are taken.
    An average is created to generate a calculation. THAT IS A MISTAKE AS IT CHANGES THE ORB INTO A CYLINDER!!!
    Try to reapply this at every point where the measurements were taken and they HAVE to change into a different shape as the average now is NOT the actual point the measurement was taken from.

    Currently working on the diagrams that show this clearly as the cylinder has the average of all the measurements in a single line.

  27. stefanthedenier says:
    December 5, 2011 at 11:39 pm

    OPEN CHALLENGE TO ALL COMENTERS, TO FIND MISTAKE, OR BETTER ANSWERS

    If any of the active Warmist / Skeptic gets outside the ‘’city island heat’’: you can see 10km radios +10km up = 700km3 of air. There are horizontal and vertical winds. From those rocks over there, vertical wind goes up – behind there, vertical winds go in direction down towards the swamp – on the other side – vertical winds go fast up from that red exposed soil to the sunlight – further there vertical wind goes in direction down towards the rice paddies – behind you, the wind goes upward from the farmer’s house walls / roof. Those winds slow when the cloud comes above… but depends on the angle the cloud approaches and its density / altitude… then those winds speed up again, but not at the same speed… red soil is warmed faster than the rocky outcrops. After sundown 2h, from the sandy soil and that house, winds change directions. From the red soil and the rice paddy / swamp, change direction after midnight; but at slower speed.

    2]Those vertical winds are attacked by horizontal winds that are on different altitude / directions every 90m. up. Sometime SOME winds travel at 3knots – others at 27knots – others at 50knots and rearrange the temperature constantly – then some slow down – other speed up. Who is recording the DIFERENT temperatures on every few cubic meters that is changing every 10 minutes in the year, in the space you can see?!?! The space you can see with your eyes, without moving, area of 600 000 different temperatures and those temperatures change every 10 minutes. There are 6 000 thermometers monitoring for IPCC on the WHOLE planet! Only 1% of thermometers for what is needed, to monitor the space you can see with your eyes. How many thermometers you think you will see in those 700km3?! How much larger area on the planet you cannot see without mowing?!? Be honest to yourself. Not 100-200-300-600 years ago… NOW they have 6 000 thermometers for the whole planet that is sending them data, mostly on the ground / most concentrated in Europe /USA…

    Nobody knows the temperature in the troposphere for last year, to save his life; but they pretend to know for year 1700, 1200AD, 5BC. They know which year was warmer by 0,2⁰C or colder than the previous year… look at their charts… What was the temperature 345km NE of Wellington? People didn’t even know that New Zealand existed at that time… What about 432km SW of Hobart, at 357m altitude on the year after, on 4 of July at 9,35AM; or 456km SW of Easter island on that same time of the day at 69m altitude? Is Easter island not on their globe? Easter island in Pacific represents 20 times larger atmosphere than Europe + USA. Was it cloudy on that day? When gets cloudy – upper atmosphere gets warmer – on the ground cooler; but that rule is only for daytime; at night is opposite; but not if it wasn’t cloudy… depends on the thickness AND altitude of the cloud, also. Com-on ‘’leading scientist with temperature charts’’. Temperature in the troposphere is 3 dimensional. Would you buy a used car from a temperature chart maker?! Because of them, billions of $$$ are getting ripped-off, because of them, tremendous damages is getting done to the economy, environment and to kid’s brains in school and university. People shouldn’t profit from crime; existing law says in Australia.

    With that lousy accuracy, when they state that: one year was warmer or colder than the next by 0,05⁰C, it’s only admission that he or she is honesty deficient! Would you buy a used car from con like that?! For correct data, must be from every cubic meter of air, equally; for every 10 minutes in the year; from the ground to the edge of the troposphere. Not only from the hottest minute in the day – unless the hottest minute is on same time, every day on every place on the planet. Otherwise is all bull. When some place is warmer than usual – declaring the WHOLE planet is warmer – is same as saying: the planet is warmer at lunch time by 12⁰C, than before sunrise…?! That’s how reliable their data collection is. They collect data on 6 000 places on the planet / not evenly distributed. It’s ESSENTIAL to have from 6 000 trillion places data to be collected, for every few minutes, before can start talking about reliability of GLOBAL temperature. They are not interested in correct data; because correct data is proving them wrong. Local temperatures always fluctuate – GLOBAL never! Everybody confuses that: on the moon temperature is two-dimensional; but on the earth is 3 dimensional temperature. Treating the earth as 2 dimensional temp, created confusion = made both camps wrong, wrong! http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com

  28. P.G. Sharrow says:
    December 6, 2011 at 2:41 am

    @Richard111 says:
    December 3, 2011 at 8:04 am

    Excellent experiment’ most elegant and simple. You should try different orientations and then graph and submit. Real science data that we could all use. pg