Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask  (Read 670910 times)

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3250 on: June 18, 2020, 07:54:06 PM »
Quote
During the daytime in the summer, the increased greenhouse gases act to reduce incoming solar radiation (this is established science).
Not being a climate scientist myself, I asked Google "Do GHGs block incoming solar radiation?" And it seems from the first few answers like they don't really do that. Most of the Sun's energy arrives in visible wavelengths in which GHGs are transparent. However outgoing radiation is in long-wave infrared in which GHGs are relatively opaque. So I get the feeling you need to post a bit more support for the quoted claim, despite it being "established science".

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3251 on: June 18, 2020, 07:59:40 PM »
Quote
During the daytime in the summer, the increased greenhouse gases act to reduce incoming solar radiation (this is established science).
Not being a climate scientist myself, I asked Google "Do GHGs block incoming solar radiation?" And it seems from the first few answers like they don't really do that. Most of the Sun's energy arrives in visible wavelengths in which GHGs are transparent. However outgoing radiation is in long-wave infrared in which GHGs are relatively opaque. So I get the feeling you need to post a bit more support for the quoted claim, despite it being "established science".

Here is a copy of the solar spectrum.  While it is certainly true that the visible energy is higher than the infrared, there is still significant energy arriving in the infrared spectrum (otherwise the sun would not heat the Earth).  As can be seen from the spectrum, GHGs block significant energy in the infrared section of the spectrum to have a substantial effect.

Someone is going to have to show me how to post these images.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Solar_Spectrum.png

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3194
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 564
  • Likes Given: 385
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3252 on: June 18, 2020, 08:18:38 PM »
"there is still significant energy arriving in the infrared spectrum (otherwise the sun would not heat the Earth)"

This seems...the best word I can find is confused
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3253 on: June 18, 2020, 08:24:11 PM »
"there is still significant energy arriving in the infrared spectrum (otherwise the sun would not heat the Earth)"

This seems...the best word I can find is confused

He could be.  Incoming solar radiation encompasses the UV and higher ranges also.  Not just visible.

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3254 on: June 18, 2020, 08:32:56 PM »
Quote
During the daytime in the summer, the increased greenhouse gases act to reduce incoming solar radiation (this is established science).
Not being a climate scientist myself, I asked Google "Do GHGs block incoming solar radiation?" And it seems from the first few answers like they don't really do that. Most of the Sun's energy arrives in visible wavelengths in which GHGs are transparent. However outgoing radiation is in long-wave infrared in which GHGs are relatively opaque. So I get the feeling you need to post a bit more support for the quoted claim, despite it being "established science".

Here is a copy of the solar spectrum.  While it is certainly true that the visible energy is higher than the infrared, there is still significant energy arriving in the infrared spectrum (otherwise the sun would not heat the Earth).  As can be seen from the spectrum, GHGs block significant energy in the infrared section of the spectrum to have a substantial effect.

Someone is going to have to show me how to post these images.


The part about "(otherwise the sun would not heat the Earth)" is total and complete nonsense. Visible light can certainly heat objects, given enough of it and less than 100% albedo.
As for the rest, how much energy coming in is blocked by GHGs, vs. how much energy going out is blocked? Could you post the spectrum of outgoing radiation, on the same scale? Or find someone who has quantified both effects?

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3255 on: June 18, 2020, 08:46:36 PM »
As requested, here are spectra of incoming and outgoing radiation.  While the low end of the incoming radiation spectrum is ~0.12 W/m2/nm, the high end of the outgoing spectrum is ~0.12 W/m2/nm. 

https://fed.ino.it/?p=12290

https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/applications-and-investigations-in-earth-science-8th-edition-chapter-13.3-solutions-9780321957962

While visible light can cause heating of the surface, the majority results from the infrared.

https://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/parameters/weather/photosynthetically-active-radiation/

Freegrass

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1601
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 509
  • Likes Given: 747
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3256 on: June 18, 2020, 08:52:22 PM »
Many people erroneously claim that AGW will lead to an increase in all temperatures, all the time.  This is not so, and the claim that heat waves will be more frequent and severe has led some to dismiss the entire theory.
That's why I'm still calling it Climate Change. It's much easier to explain a changing climate to people that live in area where temperatures have actually gone down.
If every 8 year old in the world is taught meditation, we will eliminate violence from the world within one generation.
-The Dalai Lama

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3257 on: June 18, 2020, 08:55:19 PM »
Many people erroneously claim that AGW will lead to an increase in all temperatures, all the time.  This is not so, and the claim that heat waves will be more frequent and severe has led some to dismiss the entire theory.
That's why I'm still calling it Climate Change. It's much easier to explain a changing climate to people that live in area where temperatures have actually gone down.
Yes.  That is probably better than calling it temperature moderation with a net increase.  lol

Freegrass

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1601
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 509
  • Likes Given: 747
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3258 on: June 18, 2020, 08:56:13 PM »
Thanks, that gives much better contrast

Very welcome. Glad that worked for you.

Be sure to also try 'return [B8A*2,B03*1,B02*1]'. Icy stuff appears in pinkish tones. Melt ponds are easy to spot, they appear in bright blue. The darker the blue, the deeper the melt pond.

I bet there are more treasures hidden in this line of code.
Has anyone made a thread yet with all those codes? That would really be helpful.
If every 8 year old in the world is taught meditation, we will eliminate violence from the world within one generation.
-The Dalai Lama

Freegrass

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1601
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 509
  • Likes Given: 747
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3259 on: June 18, 2020, 09:04:54 PM »
Many people erroneously claim that AGW will lead to an increase in all temperatures, all the time.  This is not so, and the claim that heat waves will be more frequent and severe has led some to dismiss the entire theory.
That's why I'm still calling it Climate Change. It's much easier to explain a changing climate to people that live in area where temperatures have actually gone down.
Yes.  That is probably better than calling it temperature moderation with a net increase.  lol
The climate is changing. It's warming up globally, but not everywhere the same. I find that easier to explain to people when they come up with an argument that some places are cooling down.
If every 8 year old in the world is taught meditation, we will eliminate violence from the world within one generation.
-The Dalai Lama

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 831
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 416
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3260 on: June 18, 2020, 09:31:34 PM »
He has not proven his absurd idea that summers are not warming because of green house gasses.
He has simply pasted links to spectra that no where supports summers will not warm .


Regional climate change and national responsibilities
James Hansen and Makiko Sato
Published 2 March 2016 • © 2016 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 3

Abstract
Quote
Global warming over the past several decades is now large enough that regional climate change is emerging above the noise of natural variability, especially in the summer at middle latitudes and year-round at low latitudes. Despite the small magnitude of warming relative to weather fluctuations, effects of the warming already have notable social and economic impacts. Global warming of 2 °C relative to preindustrial would shift the 'bell curve' defining temperature anomalies a factor of three larger than observed changes since the middle of the 20th century, with highly deleterious consequences. There is striking incongruity between the global distribution of nations principally responsible for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, known to be the main cause of climate change, and the regions suffering the greatest consequences from the warming, a fact with substantial implications for global energy and climate policies.



On going outright denial that takes up effort to endlessly debunk .... simply ban him.
Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.
Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
Robert Heinlein.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3261 on: June 18, 2020, 10:43:50 PM »
Sure ban someone just because their opinion is different from yours.  Who cares if it is true or not.  Your post is irrelevant to this conversion, as it references average temperatures, which we all agree are increasing.  Just because the average is on the rise, does not mean that every part is on the rise.  That is the truly absurd part.

I have posted this before, but for your benefit I will repost.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

The average temperature change in the coldest days of the year is +3.2F, with all regions experiencing higher temperatures in winter.  The average temperature change in the warmest days of the years is -0.92, with every region except the desert southwest experiencing a decrease.  The heat wave index has been lower for the CONUS during the first two decade of the 21st century compared to the first two decades of the 20th century, with only the decades from 1960-1980 being lower. 

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3262 on: June 18, 2020, 11:37:12 PM »
The cherry picking here is in full swing, and the purported science not established as far as I can see, but since this is the stupid questions thread we have derailed this enough. I will attempt (tomorrow) to find another thread to move this weird conversation to.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3263 on: June 19, 2020, 12:48:26 AM »
Oren,
BTW, thanks for posting the graph for me.  How is it done?

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1518
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3264 on: June 19, 2020, 04:01:57 AM »
The Walrus has not been able to post any evidence supporting his claim that the net direct effect of green-house gases during daytime in summer is negative (i.e. increased GHG will cause less of the sun's energy to reach the surface of the earth). But does it matter if it were true?  I don't think it does. Global warming would still continue, and more importantly, summer temperatures and even summer daytime temperatures would still increase.

One of the first things I learned about the effects of increased global warming by GHG is that its effects would be mostly felt during nighttime, winter and in the higher latitudes, while global warming due to incresed insolation (i.e. Milankovich) would mostly be felt during daytime, summertime and in the tropics.

Apparently the "arctic effect" itself, i.e. where the extreme north warms faster than the rest of the globe, happens whether or not the warming is caused by increased GHG or insolation. But for the rest, I believe it still stands. In other words, global warming by GHG can be shown to be the most likely explanation of current warming precisely because the temperatures have risen mostly during nighttime, winter and in the higher latitutudes.

So it wouldn't actually surprise me if the net effect of GHGs during midday on a sunny summer's day turned out to be in fact slightly negative. It makes no difference whatsoever to either the current reality or future developments.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3265 on: June 19, 2020, 05:22:22 AM »
Binntho,
You can deny the evidence, if you choose.  That is your call.  That does not make it any less true.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1518
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3266 on: June 19, 2020, 06:13:02 AM »
Binntho,
You can deny the evidence, if you choose.  That is your call.  That does not make it any less true.

What evidence did I deny? You have not put forth any evidence supporting your claim. Radiative distribution charts neither support nor disprove your claim.

I did state that I would not be surprised if you were right. And also, that I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever re. AGW.

So perhaps some actual evidence instead of ad hominem attacks. And by actual evidence I mean either direct measurements (which I'm sure exist) or published research.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1518
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3267 on: June 19, 2020, 06:18:06 AM »
Walrus, just to help you along in your search for evidence, here is an excert from lecture notes at Colombia university:

Quote from: https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
Because the atmosphere is almost transparent to sunlight, all that is absorbed at the surface results in warming and the emission of IR radiation; this radiation cannot freely escape into space because of absorption in the atmosphere by trace gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2).

Which doesn't help your case. Some further material from NASA:

Quote from: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance
About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earth’s climate system. About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, and 48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface. Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.

Which is basically neither here nor there as regards your claim. Note that the 23 percent absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. GHG) is radiated in all directions, and of course still go into warming the atmoshpere.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 831
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 416
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3268 on: June 19, 2020, 08:32:19 AM »
What's causing Arctic amplification?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=67

The warming trend in the Arctic is almost twice as large as the global average in recent decades. This is known as Arctic amplification. What's the cause? Changes in cloud cover, increases in atmospheric water vapour, more atmospheric heat transport from lower latitudes and declining sea ice have all been suggested as contributing factors. A new paper The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification (Screen & Simmonds 2010) (here's the full paperhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/43352154_The_Central_Role_of_Diminishing_Sea_Ice_in_Recent_Arctic_Temperature_Amplification) examines this question. The title is a bit of a give-away  - the decline in sea ice is the major driver of Arctic amplification.

The vertical profile of Arctic warming (i.e. - how much warming occurs at different altitudes) gives us insight into the underlying cause. If atmospheric heat transported from lower latitudes was the major driver, more warming would be expected at greater heights. On the other hand, if retreating snow and sea ice cover was the major cause, maximum warming would be expected at the surface. Figure 1 shows the simulated warming expected in each season if declining sea ice was the major cause of warming.


Figure 1: Temperature trends linked to changes in sea ice. Temperature trends over the 1989–2008 period averaged around circles of latitude for winter (a), spring (b), summer (c) and autumn (d). The trends are derived from projections of the temperature field on the sea ice time series.

Using higher resolution temperature data supplemented with updated satellite measurements, Screen 2010 analyse the observe warming trend in each season. What they find is maximum Arctic warming at the surface and that warming lessens with height in all seasons except summer. This vertical structure suggests that changes at the surface, such as decreases in sea ice and snow cover, are the primary causes of recent Arctic amplification.

Figure 2: Observation of temperature trends, 1989–2008. Temperature trends averaged around circles of latitude for winter (December–February; a), spring (March–May; b), summer (June–August; c) and autumn (September–November; d). Red shading indicates that the lower atmosphere has warmed faster than the atmospheric column as whole. Blue shading indicates that the lower atmosphere has warmed slower than the atmospheric column as a whole.

The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification
James A. Screen & Ian Simmonds
Nature volume 464, pages1334–1337(2010)Cite this article
956 Citations

Abstract
Quote
The rise in Arctic near-surface air temperatures has been almost twice as large as the global average in recent decades1,2,3—a feature known as ‘Arctic amplification’. Increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases have driven Arctic and global average warming1,4; however, the underlying causes of Arctic amplification remain uncertain. The roles of reductions in snow and sea ice cover5,6,7 and changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation8,9,10, cloud cover and water vapour11,12 are still matters of debate. A better understanding of the processes responsible for the recent amplified warming is essential for assessing the likelihood, and impacts, of future rapid Arctic warming and sea ice loss13,14. Here we show that the Arctic warming is strongest at the surface during most of the year and is primarily consistent with reductions in sea ice cover. Changes in cloud cover, in contrast, have not contributed strongly to recent warming. Increases in atmospheric water vapour content, partly in response to reduced sea ice cover, may have enhanced warming in the lower part of the atmosphere during summer and early autumn. We conclude that diminishing sea ice has had a leading role in recent Arctic temperature amplification. The findings reinforce suggestions that strong positive ice–temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic15, increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss, and will probably affect polar ecosystems, ice-sheet mass balance and human activities in the Arctic2.


Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.
Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
Robert Heinlein.

blumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3269 on: June 19, 2020, 08:46:57 AM »

Has anyone made a thread yet with all those codes? That would really be helpful.

Here you go:

Share your custom rendering settings here.

:)

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3270 on: June 19, 2020, 09:03:59 AM »
Oren,
BTW, thanks for posting the graph for me.  How is it done?
I selected the link and clicked the image icon. It works for images stored on the web.
You can always quote a message and then see the code in it.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3271 on: June 19, 2020, 01:56:21 PM »
Binntho,
You can deny the evidence, if you choose.  That is your call.  That does not make it any less true.

What evidence did I deny? You have not put forth any evidence supporting your claim. Radiative distribution charts neither support nor disprove your claim.

I did state that I would not be surprised if you were right. And also, that I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever re. AGW.

So perhaps some actual evidence instead of ad hominem attacks. And by actual evidence I mean either direct measurements (which I'm sure exist) or published research.

I have not made any ad hominem attacks.  All I stated was that you denied the evidence that I presented.  Such as the evidence from the U.S. Global Change Research Program to which I just referenced.  Maybe his one from GRL would better suit your tastes:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL081046

Perhaps, reading some of the posts in other threads here about the lack of increased temperatures in the Arctic during the summer might help your understanding.

kassy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2452
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1171
  • Likes Given: 1018
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3272 on: June 19, 2020, 02:08:12 PM »
I have posted this before, but for your benefit I will repost.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

The average temperature change in the coldest days of the year is +3.2F, with all regions experiencing higher temperatures in winter.  The average temperature change in the warmest days of the years is -0.92, with every region except the desert southwest experiencing a decrease.  The heat wave index has been lower for the CONUS during the first two decade of the 21st century compared to the first two decades of the 20th century, with only the decades from 1960-1980 being lower.

This is only US data. It would be interesting to see similar data from Europe or other places.

This data might have regional elements. Land use change has been suggested for mid west i think and of course there must be changes in polluting particles over time etc. So you can not use this graph to point out CO2/GHG effects without accounting for that. 

Quote
Many people erroneously claim that AGW will lead to an increase in all temperatures, all the time.

But no people that actually read/study it will. We all know about short term noise.

Climate runs on long time cycles. If we look at a 100 year time frame (so 2100) you will see that all temperatures will have gone up.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3273 on: June 19, 2020, 03:05:56 PM »
I have posted this before, but for your benefit I will repost.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

The average temperature change in the coldest days of the year is +3.2F, with all regions experiencing higher temperatures in winter.  The average temperature change in the warmest days of the years is -0.92, with every region except the desert southwest experiencing a decrease.  The heat wave index has been lower for the CONUS during the first two decade of the 21st century compared to the first two decades of the 20th century, with only the decades from 1960-1980 being lower.

This is only US data. It would be interesting to see similar data from Europe or other places.

This data might have regional elements. Land use change has been suggested for mid west i think and of course there must be changes in polluting particles over time etc. So you can not use this graph to point out CO2/GHG effects without accounting for that. 

Quote
Many people erroneously claim that AGW will lead to an increase in all temperatures, all the time.

But no people that actually read/study it will. We all know about short term noise.

Climate runs on long time cycles. If we look at a 100 year time frame (so 2100) you will see that all temperatures will have gone up.

I cannot speak to your prediction that all temperatures will go up by 2100.  Nor will I be alive to witness it.  I can only relate to what has been documented in the past.  You may argue that it is only U.S. data, but that is all the data that I have available.  If you have similar data from other parts of the globe dating back a century or more, I would be glad to peruse it.  As such, I can only base conclusions on the long term data that is available.

kassy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2452
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1171
  • Likes Given: 1018
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3274 on: June 19, 2020, 03:35:08 PM »
Lets quote several graphs from your article:

Table 6.1. Observed changes in annual average temperature (°F) for each National Climate Assessment region. Changes are the difference between the average for present-day (1986–2016) and the average for the first half of the last century (1901–1960 for the contiguous United States, 1925–1960 for Alaska, Hawai‘i, and the Caribbean). Estimates are derived from the nClimDiv dataset.

Table 6.2. Observed changes in the coldest and warmest daily temperatures (°F) of the year for each National Climate Assessment region in the contiguous United States. Changes are the difference between the average for present-day (1986–2016) and the average for the first half of the last century (1901–1960). Estimates are derived from long-term stations with minimal missing data in the Global Historical Climatology Network–Daily dataset.

Graphic 6.3
Observed changes in the coldest and warmest daily temperatures (°F) of the year in the contiguous United States. Maps (top) depict changes at stations; changes are the difference between the average for present-day (1986–2016) and the average for the first half of the last century (1901–1960). Time series (bottom) depict the area-weighted average for the contiguous United States. Estimates are derived from long-term stations with minimal missing data in the Global Historical Climatology Network–Daily dataset. (Figure source: NOAA/NCEI).

SO 6.1 the averages go up everywhere
6.2 shows colder days going up more then the warm days as expected
6.3 shows there is clustering due to region. Before you generalize to the globe you have to explain that regional clustering.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3275 on: June 19, 2020, 04:06:52 PM »
I have already given my explanation.  The data supports that.  The largest increase in temperature occurs on the coldest days.  The smallest increase occurred in the southeast.  All regions, except the desert southwest (which has very little cloud influence), experienced a decease in the warmest days. 

In summary, the coldest days have increased by 3.3F, while the warmest days have decreased by 0.9F.  The average change is +1.2F or about 0.7C, which is equal to their temperature increase of 0.7C using average temperatures. 

The data supports the hypothesis.

Glen Koehler

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 350
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 757
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3276 on: June 19, 2020, 04:21:06 PM »
What's causing Arctic amplification? https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=67

      Thanks KiwiGriff.  Your post deserves more prominence than the "Stupid Questions" thread. 
   
       It speaks to the centrality of the ASI to the future habitability of our planet... sooner than most people realize.  What happens when we start hitting BOE in September, then BOE in August and October a couple of years later?  With July (with near peak insolation) next up on the stove.  And before each month reaches BOE, EVERY month trends toward more open water and lower albedo. 

      IMHO we are very close to even more dramatic ASI loss acceleration.  That in turn poses major risk of systemic shifts in the weather patterns that we depend upon for agriculture and everything else.  By soon I mean that 2030 is looking bad.  Even that is an understatement given that we have already lost >75% of the September ASI volume, so 2020 is already bad.  But the situation is likely to get much worse in the next 10 years unless we act forcefully in the right direction.  I hope we all vote and act as if we are in a planetary crisis, because we are.
 

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 831
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 416
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3277 on: June 19, 2020, 04:30:00 PM »
Science Briefs
Modeling the Dust Bowl Climate Forcings
By Benjamin Cook — June 2008
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/cook_01/
Quote
Recurrent periods of drought are a common feature of North American climate, often the result of colder than normal sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the eastern tropical Pacific (so-called La Niña conditions). One such drought, the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930s, resulted in widespread crop failure, dust storms, and the displacement of thousands of people.

The Dust Bowl drought was atypical for a North American drought in many ways, most notably the fact that it was centered over the Great Plains rather than in the southwest and was accompanied by large scale dust storms that were unprecedented in the historical record. The dust storms themselves resulted from a combination of dry conditions, poor land use practices, and large scale crop failures that exposed easily erodible bare soil to the strong winds of the Great Plains. Many climate models, however, have difficulty reproducing the precipitation pattern of the Dust Bowl drought using SSTs alone. Could the dust storms themselves explain the anomalous drought?

Map of atmospheric dust loading over North America
Figure 1, at left: Ensemble mean differences in total atmospheric dust loading, g/m2, Experiment 3 (SST+Dust) minus Experiment 2 (SST only). Outlined are the eight grid boxes that constitute the new dust source in the SST+Dust experiments. View larger image.

The impact of dust on precipitation is an active area of research. Dust in the atmosphere reflects sunlight back to space, reducing temperatures at the surface as well as evaporation. If evaporation is sufficiently reduced, then the supply of moisture for cloud formation and precipitation can also be severely reduced, resulting in decreased precipitation. Thus, there is a strong potential that the added dust in the atmosphere during this drought could have intensified the drought by reducing precipitation over the plains.

Maps of precipitation anomalies over North America

Figure 2, at right: Spatial extent and magnitude of precipitation anomalies for 1932-1939. Shown are data from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) dataset and output from the two GISS model experiments (SST only in middle panel and SST+Dust in bottom panel). For GHCN data, anomalies are relative to GHCN data for 1920-1929. For model experiments, anomalies are relative to the SST forcing (1920-1929) experiment. View larger image.

To test the effect of atmospheric dust, we ran the GISS climate model with observed SSTs for 1932-1939, with and without the presence of a dust source over the Great Plains. Figure 1 shows the increase in model atmospheric dust when this source is added, relative to a simulation without the added dust source. Figure 2 shows the observed precipitation anomaly (top panel), the model generated precipitation anomaly with SST forcing only (middle panel), and the model generated precipitation anomaly with the effects of observed SSTs and the added dust source (bottom panel).

When the effect of dust is included in our climate model, we get a much more realistic simulation of the drought. The SST only drought is centered too far south and is not dry enough compared to observations. When the dust source is added, the drying intensifies and the center of the drought moves north over the Great Plains. This suggest that human land degradation was an integral part of the Dust Bowl story.

Since then, the U.S. has developed strict soil conservation and erosion control measures under the auspices of the Soil Conservation Service to prevent events like the Dust Bowl from reoccurring. In the developing world, however, as population pressure and climate changes pushes farmers onto more and more marginal land, the potential for reoccurence of Dust Bowl-like conditions in these regions is increasingly likely. Vulnerable areas include both interior China and semi-arid regions of Africa, where the landscape is particularly vulnerable.

Reference:
Cook, B.I., R.L. Miller, and R. Seager, 2008: Dust and sea surface temperature forcing of the 1930s "Dust Bowl" drought. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08710, doi:10.1029/2008GL033486

The lack of summer warming in the Continental USA is due entirely to the records from the dustbowl in the 30's.
A human enhanced event having nothing to do with global warming .
Remove this event from the record and there is warming during summer in the USA.
As there is in all mid latitudes.
Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.
Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
Robert Heinlein.

Glen Koehler

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 350
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 757
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3278 on: June 19, 2020, 04:32:17 PM »
<snip> The data supports the hypothesis.
     Only in a narrow cherry-picking view.  Your narrow focus on the extreme events in one region is misplaced. 

 
     The observed summer-only temperature observations show only slightly cooler in a minority of U.S. (note: even the light peach-colored areas in the Southeast were warmer, only the areas in blue were cooler relative to earlier in the century)


     Moreover, the narrow focus on the warmest days of the year is temporary.  All areas are expected to show higher temperatures on the warmest days of the year going forward.
   

     
    The focus on observed extreme high temps in one region misses that point that AGW is making the planet hotter in ways that are not good for human civilization and most other existing species. 

    A wider view that does not focus on the exceptional case is more accurate.  Here are the observed regional U.S. changes in max and min daily temperatures.  All the regions show increase for both daily average Max and Min temperatures.



      And that slightly wider view is still narrowly focused on one country.  The global picture is even more compelling.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2020, 06:38:32 PM by Glen Koehler »

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3279 on: June 19, 2020, 05:27:47 PM »
Yes, observed average temperatures have increased.  No one is disputing that.  No one is missing the point that AGW is warming the planet, just because the warmest temperatures are not increasing.  Look at the graphic you posted.  The warmest temperatures of the past two decades in the U.S. are below those of the first two decades of the 20th century.  That precedes the dust bowl! 

All regions but the desert southwest in no way constitutes a "minority of the U.S."


Glen Koehler

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 350
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 757
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3280 on: June 19, 2020, 05:37:28 PM »
     My statement about a "minority of U.S." was with respect to and true for the summer temperatures graphic, it was not referring to the warmest days graphic.   

      RE "The warmest temperatures of the past two decades in the U.S. are below those of the first two decades of the 20th century.  That precedes the dust bowl!"
     Not true.  The comparison for the warmest days image is 1986-2016 vs 1901-1960.  Thus the comparison to earlier years includes all of the dust bowl years. 

     The reason for my objections to your argument is your assumption that "just because the warmest temperatures are not increasing."   Yes they have increased if the reference point is warmest temperatures of the day, i.e. average daily max.  Only looking at the extreme warmest day of the year leads to a distorted impression.  That is why folks are giving you grief about this. 
   
      And by putting it in the present tense you imply that those warmest day of the year temperatures are not increasing at present.  But you have not shown data to support that. The data you cite are observations over two extended periods, not the current rate of change.  To the contrary, the trend forecast estimates that the warmest temperature of the year will be higher in the future. 

      Neither of us have shown data about the current rate of change for warmest temperature of the year.  I am saying that a) we need a comparison of more recent data to evaluate that question and b) that the warmest temperature of the year is not the real story anyway, and focusing on that narrow measure obscures the larger issue.  Your stance seems to be that past observations for warmest temperature of the year represent their current rate of change, which they do not.  And that the warmest temperature of the year deserves more attention than broader measures, with which I simply disagree.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2020, 07:35:34 AM by Glen Koehler »

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3281 on: June 19, 2020, 06:00:23 PM »
     My statement about a "minority of U.S." was with respect to and true for the summer temperatures graphic, it was not referring to the warmest days graphic.   

  RE  "The warmest temperatures of the past two decades in the U.S. are below those of the first two decades of the 20th century.  That precedes the dust bowl!"
     Not true.  The comparison for the warmest days image is 1986-2016 vs 1901-1960.  Thus the comparison to earlier years includes all of the dust bowl years. 

     The reason for my objections to your argument is your assumption that "just because the warmest temperatures are not increasing."   Yes they are increasing if the reference point is warmest temperatures of the day, i.e. average daily max.  Only looking at the extreme warmest day of the year leads to a distorted impression.  That is why folks are giving you grief about this.

The entire AGW theory does get not dispelled just because the temperature record is not exclusively rising.  Anyone who does so, is not being honest with themselves or others.  The observed temperature increase is due to atmospheric gases decreasing the energy loss, by absorbing infrared radiation that would otherwise be lost to space.  The energy loss is greatest during winter, nighttime, and higher latitudes, and consequently, the warming effect is largest during those times.  The gases do not just absorb outgoing radiation, but incoming as well.  This effect is greatest during the summer daylight hours.

All of this was in response to Tom's question, which I have reposted:

Here is a “stupid” question:
Why are the 48 contiguous states AGW Houdini?
Whenever I see a map of AGW I see swaths of red, brown and maroon with a white or even pale blue blob in the CONUS. We haven’t had a summer like 1988 since, well, 1988. If it were hotter here it would be easier to convince us of AGW.

My answer is that it would be easier to convince others if summers were getting hotter.  However, one does not convince another by dismissing their original contention.  They will just consider the entire argument false, based on the denial of the stated fact.  That is why I prefer Freegrass' response best,

"That's why I'm still calling it Climate Change. It's much easier to explain a changing climate to people that live in area where temperatures have actually gone down."


Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3619
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 622
  • Likes Given: 308
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3282 on: June 19, 2020, 11:58:31 PM »
Maybe that is why it’s not getting much hotter in America (accept for argument) but then why is It getting hotter everywhere else? AGW should affect everywhere the same, right?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

igs

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3283 on: June 20, 2020, 01:28:22 AM »
Maybe that is why it’s not getting much hotter in America (accept for argument) but then why is It getting hotter everywhere else? AGW should affect everywhere the same, right?


Not right, wrong


There is a lot to this topic but wind patterns, cloud patterns, ocean currents, the jetstream and so much else is adapting to the changes and the effects can be very different in different locations.


Just imagine a warm ocean current that reaches far north would start to "nosedive" a few thousand kilometers more south, means it would reach far less north than before. That would mean a significant cool down in "lee" of the prevailing wind direction.


In case of the gulf stream that would mean a cooldown in Norway and parts of Europe while the majority of the world would continue to heat up.


There are too many possiblilities and we don't know with certainty what will happen with all the various feedbacks of which we dunno which ones will prevail.

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3284 on: June 20, 2020, 02:12:15 AM »
Quote
The gases do not just absorb outgoing radiation, but incoming as well.  This effect is greatest during the summer daylight hours.
Walrus, you have claimed this is established science. My knowledge is limited but my nose claims something is fishy here. If you are wrong this borders on denial IMHO. Please provide serious article, website or paper showing GHGs blockage of incoming radiation is larger in total effect than GHGs blockage of outgoing radiation, thus leading to summer daytime cooling with GHGs rise. Not providing such may lead to further escalation.

Note: Cherry picking US data that somehow always combines the dust bowl period is not a proof of the above claim. Do GHG cool summer days?? A clear scientific response please.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3285 on: June 20, 2020, 03:08:11 AM »
Quote
The gases do not just absorb outgoing radiation, but incoming as well.  This effect is greatest during the summer daylight hours.
Walrus, you have claimed this is established science. My knowledge is limited but my nose claims something is fishy here. If you are wrong this borders on denial IMHO. Please provide serious article, website or paper showing GHGs blockage of incoming radiation is larger in total effect than GHGs blockage of outgoing radiation, thus leading to summer daytime cooling with GHGs rise. Not providing such may lead to further escalation.

Note: Cherry picking US data that somehow always combines the dust bowl period is not a proof of the above claim. Do GHG cool summer days?? A clear scientific response please.

You are asking for something that is virtually impossible to measure.  I have shown absorption spectra of both incoming (shortwave IR) and outgoing (longwave IR) radiation, along with the respective absorption bands of the various GHGs.  The best we can do is measure the difference by using temperatures as a proxy. 

The U.S. data shows cooling, even without the dust bowl years.  Remember, the question posed was specific to the U.S.  Hence it is not cherry-picking to focus on U.S. data.  Additionally, I have not seen any long term data for other regions. 

Have you been following the other threads, where we have discussed why Arctic summer temperatures have not changed?  The major theory is increased clouds have blocked incoming solar radiation.  The only denial occurring here is among those that believe that a gas only absorbs radiation in one direction.  This is contrary to the laws of physics.  If this is false, why has no one presented any evidence to the contrary?

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3286 on: June 20, 2020, 09:39:35 AM »
You are asking for something that is virtually impossible to measure.  I have shown absorption spectra of both incoming (shortwave IR) and outgoing (longwave IR) radiation, along with the respective absorption bands of the various GHGs.  The best we can do is measure the difference by using temperatures as a proxy. 
No, no, no. This is very easy to quantify for a scientist with the right tools. Temperature proxies are complex, absorption spectra are easy. You have claimed this is established science. Please prove or take back.

Quote
The U.S. data shows cooling, even without the dust bowl years.  Remember, the question posed was specific to the U.S.  Hence it is not cherry-picking to focus on U.S. data.  Additionally, I have not seen any long term data for other regions. 
The question was why the US appears to be not warming or cooling in certain parts. You gave your GHG theory as the answer, and to prove it you come up with data showing somehow the US is cooling. But this was the original question, it can't be the answer too. If your GHG theory is correct it could be the answer (though then the effect should be visible globally). Prove the theory, show the science says so.

Quote
Have you been following the other threads, where we have discussed why Arctic summer temperatures have not changed?  The major theory is increased clouds have blocked incoming solar radiation.
Actually no. Arctic summer temps at the pole (AKA DMI N 80) have not changed because the ice is always there (still) and it pins the air temps to the ice melting point, regardless of the amount of incoming energy. Simple and clear.

Quote
The only denial occurring here is among those that believe that a gas only absorbs radiation in one direction.  This is contrary to the laws of physics.  If this is false, why has no one presented any evidence to the contrary?
There is a reason these gases are called Greenhouse Gases. The analogy to a greenhouse that absorbs outgoing radiation but is mostly transparent to incoming radiation - because their spectra are different - thus warming the inside of the greenhouse, is quite clear. I repeat again, without proof this borders on denial of the main theory of GHG-driven AGW. And yet you have still not supplied proof, scientific proof. If what you claim is true there should be plenty of websites explaining it, please at least provide links if not papers.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1518
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3287 on: June 20, 2020, 09:59:04 AM »
I have not made any ad hominem attacks.  All I stated was that you denied the evidence that I presented. 

No you did not. You said that I was "choosing to deny evidence", implying some sinister motive. That is ad hominem - instead of defendning or supporting your claim you make derogatory insinuations about my person.

But first some clarification: Your claim is that net insolation at noon in summer decreases with increased GHG.

And I'm flabbergasted when you say that you have presented evidence. You haven't. The last link you included does NOT support your claim, it's about cloud cover feedback. If it says anything about net solar insolation going down with incrased GHG then you can find the relevant passage and post it here.

Your previous link to the Global Research programme does not support your claim either! It's about temperature changes in the contiguous United States. If it says anything about net solar insolation going down with incrased GHG then you can find the relevant passage and post it here.

But perhaps the stupidest thing about your post is that I am not disputing that your claim could be correct. I'd just like to see some proper evidence, rather than this flinging about of personal attacks mixed with pretend evidence.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1518
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3288 on: June 20, 2020, 10:17:09 AM »
Quote
The gases do not just absorb outgoing radiation, but incoming as well.  This effect is greatest during the summer daylight hours.
Walrus, you have claimed this is established science. My knowledge is limited but my nose claims something is fishy here. If you are wrong this borders on denial IMHO. Please provide serious article, website or paper showing GHGs blockage of incoming radiation is larger in total effect than GHGs blockage of outgoing radiation, thus leading to summer daytime cooling with GHGs rise. Not providing such may lead to further escalation.

Note: Cherry picking US data that somehow always combines the dust bowl period is not a proof of the above claim. Do GHG cool summer days?? A clear scientific response please.

You are asking for something that is virtually impossible to measure.  I have shown absorption spectra of both incoming (shortwave IR) and outgoing (longwave IR) radiation, along with the respective absorption bands of the various GHGs.  The best we can do is measure the difference by using temperatures as a proxy. 

No it's not impossible to measure. If any real scientists thought that this was a real phenomenon they would model it mathematically as a first step, and measure it as a second step.

But what you've just confirmed is that you have absolutely no idea, you'r just making some spurious claim and when pressed for evidence you make the even stranger claim of it somehow not being possible to measure!
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

interstitial

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 596
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3289 on: June 20, 2020, 11:02:43 AM »
Walrus I also read through your "evidence". They are vaguely related to the topic and one was quite lengthy but I saw nothing that supports your claim. 

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3619
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 622
  • Likes Given: 308
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3290 on: June 20, 2020, 01:41:29 PM »
Quote
If your GHG theory is correct it could be the answer (though then the effect should be visible globally).
Exactly, oren.
It is why my local part of the world is so different that was puzzling me.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3291 on: June 20, 2020, 03:09:29 PM »
Quote
The gases do not just absorb outgoing radiation, but incoming as well.  This effect is greatest during the summer daylight hours.
Walrus, you have claimed this is established science. My knowledge is limited but my nose claims something is fishy here. If you are wrong this borders on denial IMHO. Please provide serious article, website or paper showing GHGs blockage of incoming radiation is larger in total effect than GHGs blockage of outgoing radiation, thus leading to summer daytime cooling with GHGs rise. Not providing such may lead to further escalation.

Note: Cherry picking US data that somehow always combines the dust bowl period is not a proof of the above claim. Do GHG cool summer days?? A clear scientific response please.

You are asking for something that is virtually impossible to measure.  I have shown absorption spectra of both incoming (shortwave IR) and outgoing (longwave IR) radiation, along with the respective absorption bands of the various GHGs.  The best we can do is measure the difference by using temperatures as a proxy. 

No it's not impossible to measure. If any real scientists thought that this was a real phenomenon they would model it mathematically as a first step, and measure it as a second step.

But what you've just confirmed is that you have absolutely no idea, you'r just making some spurious claim and when pressed for evidence you make the even stranger claim of it somehow not being possible to measure!

It has been modeled.  Fourier presented that with his first hypothesis about GHGs.

http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php

The problem is measuring.  As opposed to outgoing radiation, with is emitted from a plane, incoming radiation varies based on latitude, time of day and year.  Hence it is different for each location.  With enough computing power, this can be estimated.  The incoming radiation is also a magnitude higher than outgoing, so the absorption is a much smaller fraction with even higher uncertainty.  The post that it is mostly transparent is somewhat accurate.  However, a small fraction of a large value (becoming radiation) is often greater that a large fraction of a small value (outgoing).  BTW, a greenhouse warms because the incoming radiation is absorbed by water which cannot penetrate the glass.  The outgoing radiation can and does escape.  The actual absorption varies according to surface characteristics.  The reflected radiation varies by relative humidity and cloud cover,  which is constantly changing.  This is where the real difficulty lies.  CERN has been running these types of experiments for over a decade, with much difficulty.  The claim that no one has measured supports my claim that it is virtually impossible. 

You say my statement “choosing to deny evidence” has a sinister motive.  What about your statement, “you have absolutely no idea?” or “the stupidest thing about my post?” implying other parts are stupid also.  I presented my theory to Tom’s question, and presented evidence in support of that theory.  No one else has given any explanation, except to state short term (120 yr?) noise.  I am a retired environmental chemist, who has studied exhaust gases for years.  Show me some other explanation for the data.


binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1518
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3292 on: June 20, 2020, 04:25:29 PM »
It has been modeled.  Fourier presented that with his first hypothesis about GHGs.

http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php

Where did he model this? The link (as usual) does not contain material that supports your claim.

You say my statement “choosing to deny evidence” has a sinister motive.  What about your statement, “you have absolutely no idea?” or “the stupidest thing about my post?” implying other parts are stupid also.

Quite right. I am implying that other things are stupid also. And since it is you personally that is making a claim and failing to substantiate it, then you yourself is the unavoidable target of criticism.

I presented my theory to Tom’s question, and presented evidence in support of that theory.  No one else has given any explanation, except to state short term (120 yr?) noise.  I am a retired environmental chemist, who has studied exhaust gases for years.  Show me some other explanation for the data.

Well, the problem is that the evidence does not support the theory.

This is a clearcut case of circular reasoning - the data shows an anomaly, you put on your thinking cap and come up with a hypothesis as a possible explanation, and then voila! The data anomaly itself  becomes proof of the hypothesis which then rapitdly becomes a theory, proven by the existence of the very question it was meant to answer.

You claim that the lack of warming in some areas of the continous United States is due to net insolation having a negative correlation with increased GHG concentration, but only when insolation is at maximum. But you have neither shown that this is a real phenomenon (i.e. lack of warming in the continental US has not been shown as being a proxy for the rest of the globe), nor shown whether this negative correlation is big enough to explain the supposed effect, nor  forwarded any evidence specifically supporting your claim.

And please note that if this were a real phenomenon (which I am not denying could be, by the way), then somebody should have written about it, modelled it and measured it. But nobody seems to be able to find anything along those lines, I've tried myself and I assume that you have also.

So perhaps it's time to put this to rest - and take a look at Tamino's speculations on the same subject (i.e. apparent lack of warming in the continuous United States), which I linked to as an answer to Tom's question.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1518
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3293 on: June 20, 2020, 04:37:42 PM »
Further to this supposed lack of warming in parts of the coninuous United States, I have mentioned that Tamino has written on this, and done quite a good job of it.

An example is "Climate change threatens the corn belt" where the following can be found:

Quote from: Tamino
... a sharp cooling mid-century (right around 1958) which some said was focused on the American southeast. Partridge and others had previously extended its geographic range to include more of the corn belt, when defining it as “persistently cool stations 1961-2015”:

Tamino identifies two  "warmholes" in this blog, and they have shifted over time, from the North-West to the South-East. The "warmholes" are most in evidence during summer, and when looking at maximum temperatures.

Perhaps Tamino's best post on the subject is "US Warmhole" which leads with the following illustration, "... with red dots for warming and blue for cooling, larger dots faster and smaller dots more slowly"



Funnily enough the illustration seems to disprove your claim, Walrus. The "Warmhole" is not bound to a specific latitude but rather to a specfic geographical region.

Tamino goes on to show that the warmhole in the image above is in fact a result of a sudden and permanent shift in temperatures starting with a very large fall in 1958 and rising rapidly since then. It makes for interesting reading, and does not in any way support your claim, Walrus!
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

kassy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2452
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1171
  • Likes Given: 1018
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3294 on: June 20, 2020, 04:47:18 PM »
And that is essentially what the map in fig 6,3 showed in the original link.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1518
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3295 on: June 20, 2020, 04:49:34 PM »
And that is essentially what the map in fig 6,3 showed in the original link.
And nothing strange there - but Tamino shows that warming has not stopped or slowed down in the warmhole. Actually it's the other way around, after a sudden drop in 1958, warming has been running at high speed in those areas.

How that is supposed to tie in with Walrus' claim I've no idea.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

Glen Koehler

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 350
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 757
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3296 on: June 20, 2020, 04:53:59 PM »
     Thanks binntho.  A simple "Like" wasn't enough gratitude for your taking the time to stand up for fact-based evidence. 
      Nobody needs to get their feelings hurt.  Some ideas are correct and hold up, some not.  You don't know until you ask a question or propose an answer.  That is core to the scientific method.  It can't answer every question but it is the best method we have, esp. for addressing objective, physical questions.  Tamino provides the definitive discussion of the "warmhole" question.  I hope the Stupid Questions thread can move on. 
« Last Edit: June 20, 2020, 05:19:57 PM by Glen Koehler »

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3627
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 633
  • Likes Given: 404
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3297 on: June 20, 2020, 08:00:34 PM »
I read an 'odd' explanation of how greenhouses work just above.   A quick internet search gave me this:
Quote
Step 1: Light Comes In
In order to provide light, greenhouses need to have some way for the light to come in. This is why greenhouses are made of mostly translucent materials, like glass or clear plastic. This gives the plants inside maximum access to sunlight.

Step 2: Heat Is Absorbed
When the light comes in the glass walls of the greenhouse, it is absorbed by the plants, ground and anything else in the greenhouse, converting it to infrared energy (aka heat) in the process. The darker the surface, the more energy it can absorb and turn into heat. This is why black pavement gets really hot in the summer. It's absorbing a lot of heat.

Step 3: Heat Gets Trapped
Once the light energy gets converted into infrared energy (heat), it has a different "shape" than light energy - what scientists refer to as wavelength. The change in the wavelength makes it so that the heat can't easily escape out of the greenhouse's glass walls. So while getting in was easy, getting out is harder.

Step 4: Warming the Greenhouse
The trapped heat warms the air inside the greenhouse and because a greenhouse is relatively air-tight, the warmer air stays inside, raising the entire building's temperature. This is the same effect that you've no doubt experienced when getting into a car after it's been sitting in a sunny parking space for a few hours. It is nice and toasty.
So my question:  Back to something in the 'odd' explanation:  if a greenhouse had 'no' H2O (no water, no green plants, very low humidity), would it still be warmer than outside the greenhouse on a sunny afternoon?  The answer is, surely, "Yes!"  So does H2O play any role in a greenhouse's operation?
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

kassy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2452
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1171
  • Likes Given: 1018
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3298 on: June 20, 2020, 08:06:33 PM »
Well if it is really hot and you don´t water the plants they die and that is why you had a greenhouse anyway. Evapotranspiration and all that.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 831
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 416
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3299 on: June 20, 2020, 09:26:38 PM »
I once brought a property that had a green house .Being one of those people who kill house plants by neglect I discovered quickly nothing would grow in the green house  until I installed an automatic watering system.  :)
Without regular addition of H2O a green house is just an nice warm dry place to sit in . :o
Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.
Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
Robert Heinlein.