Where has Global Warming Gone ?

Temp in Canberra this morn is 12 degrees C which is approx 3 degrees below the lowest minimum for this month.
Add the wind chill factor(Wind Speed approx 10 mph (16 kph) and temp is about -5 deg C

Max Min range for Jan Feb is:
   Max 27 deg C
   Av 20
   Min 15

We have been in Canberra since 1980 and this is the first time we have turned a heater on in Jan/Feb

Ya know what the problem is  doncha!
It is all the wind farms changing the wind patterns around the local hills and all the solar farm panels reflecting the infra freds  back into the upper atmosphere thereby cooling the surface temps.

You got PC's phone number Adrian, you don't have to do this.

Just a bait mixed with some humour.
Yeah yer right Might be time ta give it a rest. Good night for a few days.

hagwe

I have a doc. ( .pdf ) by David Coe "DC" a retired researcher I got via an article in Nexus Mag. that completely debunks global warning due to carbon dioxide, here is the link to the mag.

https://reader.magzter.com/preview/c3pgxxoolmcgp3mo5fs9f8041600/804160#page/41

"Postscript from DC"

Climate alarmists had the paper retracted until it was "vigorous peer review"

The para. that got my attention was

"
The 'elephant in the room' of the climate debate is the scientific fact that atmospheric water vapour holds around 12 times as much heat as carbon dioxide
"

The report is full of equations and charts, which for an engineer / maths grad. are "on the up and up" !!!

Reading the full publication I found myself thinking this is so obvious I can't believe I didn;t think of this

AU_Toe wrote:I have a doc. ( .pdf ) by David Coe "DC" a retired researcher I got via an article in Nexus Mag. that completely debunks global warning due to carbon dioxide, here is the link to the mag.

https://reader.magzter.com/preview/c3pgxxoolmcgp3mo5fs9f8041600/804160#page/41

"Postscript from DC"

Climate alarmists had the paper retracted until it was "vigorous peer review"

The para. that got my attention was

"
The 'elephant in the room' of the climate debate is the scientific fact that atmospheric water vapour holds around 12 times as much heat as carbon dioxide
"

The report is full of equations and charts, which for an engineer / maths grad. are "on the up and up" !!!

Reading the full publication I found myself thinking this is so obvious I can't believe I didn;t think of this

H2o is a potent green house gas however its atmospheric resident time is very short 2-3 days  before it falls as snow or rain. In contrast the atmospheric residence  time for Co2 is hundreds  of years. As the earths troposphere  warms due the  Co2 greenhouse effect it can hold more vapor which enhances the greenhouse effect and leads to even more warming as well as contributing to more frequent extreme rainfall events.So
H2o acts as a positive feedback to speed up and enhance Co2 greenhouse induced warming. We know for sure that C02 is the earths thermostat not water vapor as without the rise in atmospherics Co2 the earth would have never  fully emerged from past ice ages!

G'Day planetcare

I 100% agree.

Adrian OP is talking a system swinging way out onto the edge.

I think it is interesting how much H2O we have in Oz ATM, what happens when this gets into the Atmosphere, is it going to 'warm' up.

AU_Toe wrote:G'Day planetcare

I 100% agree.

Adrian OP is talking a system swinging way out onto the edge.

I think it is interesting how much H2O we have in Oz ATM, what happens when this gets into the Atmosphere, is it going to 'warm' up.

Carbon dioxide controls Earth's temperature
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/423/carbon-dioxide-controls-earths-temperature/

Welcome back PC.  At last i'll have someone to talk to.
You've been gone so long i thought that you must have taken my advice to learn some real science.
I was wrong you're still posting opinion pieces. Nasa is not science.

butch wrote:Welcome back PC.  At last i'll have someone to talk to.
You've been gone so long i thought that you must have taken my advice to learn some real science.
I was wrong you're still posting opinion pieces. Nasa is not science.

The "real: science  confirms exactly what  i have said! The earth is warming in response to rising Co2 levels. Satellite data including those from NASA confirm this!

Lets try to keep it calm & respectable here gents or I will have this topic locked up & any instigator or perpetrator of trouble, taking a holiday.
Let me just say that I am no scientist of climate change nor know the causes of climate change (less what I read from the sciences) but can say, that if these disasters around the world (natural or un-natural, man made or not) continue to happen more regularly, year after year, due to an increases of CO2 gasses warming the planet, should be a warning to us all & steps being taken towards doing something about it (more sooner than later), in order to reduce the effects of global warming & or prevent further disasters from occurring.
If man sits back for the sake of self interest & does nothing now, in order to reduce or prevent such world wide disasters from happening & or continue to happen, there might be nothing left to worry about at all.  

Kon  

planetcare wrote:

The "real: science  confirms exactly what  i have said! The earth is warming in response to rising C02 levels. Satellite data including those from NASA confirm this!

planetcare (Doug) still don't know the difference between CO2 and C02 he has been told before that there is no such thing as C0(zero)2 when will he ever learn that there is a difference between an alpha and numeric on his keyboard.        

       

planetcare wrote:H20 is a potent green house gas

which part of H2O is it or is it H20(zero) of which there is no such thing
H2O is water and not a gas right and very difficult for life to survive without water, just look how well Mars is now if you think we can do without CO2 and H2O

nofakenewsplease wrote:

which part of H2O is it or is it H20(zero) of which there is no such thing
H2O is water and not a gas right and very difficult for life to survive without water, just look how well Mars is now if you think we can do without CO2 and H2O

The whole part of H2o is  greenhouse gas! H2o can exist in the liquid or vapor phase ( ie a gas!)
Yes we need  Co2 and  H2o but in  excess they  can and will cause  serious problems!

planetcare wrote:

nofakenewsplease wrote:

which part of H2O is it or is it H20(zero) of which there is no such thing
H2O is water and not a gas right and very difficult for life to survive without water, just look how well Mars is now if you think we can do without CO2 and H2O

The whole part of H20 is  greenhouse gas! H20 can exist in the liquid or vapor phase ( ie a gas!)
Yes we need  C02 and  H20 but in  excess they  can and will cause  serious problems!

You still don't get it Doug, how many times do you need to be told there is NO C02 and NO H20 it is CO2 and H2O  don't use 0 (zero) in places where O should be, you want to be pedantic about everything that others say then do the same in your posts.  

and yes some will agree that H2O will cause serious problems, just look at out back SA and QLD and NSW but hey that is La-Nina not global warming

nofakenewsplease wrote:

planetcare wrote:

nofakenewsplease wrote:

which part of H2O is it or is it H20(zero) of which there is no such thing
H2O is water and not a gas right and very difficult for life to survive without water, just look how well Mars is now if you think we can do without CO2 and H2O

The whole part of H20 is  greenhouse gas! H20 can exist in the liquid or vapor phase ( ie a gas!)
Yes we need  C02 and  H20 but in  excess they  can and will cause  serious problems!

You still don't get it Doug, how many times do you need to be told there is NO C02 and NO H20 it is CO2 and H2O  don't use 0 (zero) in places where O should be, you want to be pedantic about everything that others say then do the same in your posts.  

and yes some will agree that H2O will cause serious problems, just look at out back SA and QLD and NSW but hey that is La-Nina not global warming

Ok you have made your point.Yes LA Nina is not global warming but despite La Nina Australian temperatures have broken new records

Look at it this way:

H2O is one atom of Hydrogen and two atoms of Oxygen. = Water
H20 is one atom of Hydrogen and 2 atoms of Zero. =  A big mystery.

H is for Hydrogen.
O is for Oxygen.
0 is for Zero, Nil, Nothing, Not any, Nada.

Just a warning here fellas. I care not of the discussion, but this time in, do keep it civil & within the requirements governing this forum. Don't blame me if anyone on here prefers to go above my head, by insisting on breaking the rules of this forum & ends up getting banned.

Management

The BOM homogenized the temperature records but we have discussed all this before.

I have never agreed to the fundamentalist circular argument that a gas, any gas can warm the planet.
The fact is the sun warms the earth. That heat is radiated back warming the atmosphere not the other way round, the atmosphere cannot warm the planet.

butch wrote:The BOM homogenized the temperature records but we have discussed all this before.

I have never agreed to the fundamentalist circular argument that a gas, any gas can warm the planet.
The fact is the sun warms the earth. That heat is radiated back warming the atmosphere not the other way round, the atmosphere cannot warm the planet.

The CO2 absorbs this emitted IR from the suns warming of the earths surface and then it vibrates and re-emits this absorbed infrared energy back in all directions. About 1/2 of this emitted IR is emitted into deep space and the rest returns to the troposphere and the earths surface as heat ie the greenhouse effect! As the atmospheric CO2 level rises less of this radiated IR energy is being emitted to the stratosphere and deep space. ie the earths energy balance is no longer in equilibrium where absorbed heat energy= radiated heat energy and thus the earth is rapidly warming up.

Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) / sunlight radiation.  The energy from IR radiation  causes the CO2 molecules to vibrate. Some time later, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted radiation the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating.

Molecules are constantly in motion, colliding with other gas molecules and transferring energy from one molecule to another during collisions. In the more-complex, real-world process, a CO2 molecule would most likely bump into several other gas molecules before re-emitting the infrared photon. The CO2 molecule might transfer the energy it gained from the absorbed photon to another molecule, adding speed to that molecule's motion. Since the temperature of a gas is a measure of the speed of the molecules in the gas, the faster motion of a molecule that eventually results from the IR photon that was absorbed by a CO2 molecule raises the temperature of the gases in the atmosphere.

Do all gas molecules absorb and re-emit infrared energy?

This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons and warm up the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect play an important role in Earth's climate. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. In recent years, however, excess emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities (mostly burning fossil fuels) have begun to warm Earth's climate at a problematic rate. Other significant greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).


Bummer! Have to agree with PC

we all know plants and trees etc absorb CO2 and pump out O2 oxygen, without the CO2 we get less O2

but did we all know the oceans which cover about 71% of the earths surface and hold about 96.5% of all Earth's water

these oceans also soak up more of the CO2 than the earths plants and trees and pump out more O2 oxygen than the earths plants and trees

if Australia was swept clean of every human and coal mine and coal power station and all other mining activity it would have about reduction 0.001% effect on the rest of the CO2 produced by the rest of the world

do you realize how much material is mined and produced by Australia to make solar products, lets see, copper for all the electrical wire needed Lithium for all the batteries for solar everything including ecars ebikes e scooters etrucks, solar batteries for houses and factories because there will be no coal power generators and no petrol/diesel cars and trucks

of course we all realise these solar power products have a life span of about 25 years and probably at this stage it is only the copper wire that can be recycled and the rest takes 500 years to break down and we worry about plastic and CO2

There is no global warming science. There is no falsifiable global warming model (that isn't false).

If a falsifiable global warming model exists (that isn't false) then it needs to speak for itself. Post it here for public scrutiny.
It cannot be posted here because none exists.

There is no falsifiable model within the body of science for climate or global warming.

butch wrote:There is no global warming science. There is no falsifiable global warming model (that isn't false).

If a falsifiable global warming model exists (that isn't false) then it needs to speak for itself. Post it here for public scrutiny.
It cannot be posted here because none exists.

There is no falsifiable model within the body of science for climate or global warming.

This is simply wrong! The Greenhouse induced global warming model or hypothesis makes a number of predictions which can be tested in the real world. To my knowledge all the predictions have been verified!

Is Climate Science falsifiable?
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/

Doug aka (planetcare)

you cherry pick the ones you want, there are, and you know very well, just as many to counter your cherry picking

nofakenewsplease wrote:Doug aka (planetcare)

you cherry pick the ones you want, there are, and you know very well, just as many to counter your cherry picking

The link explains it very well and is a nice summary! The fact is that the cumulative evidence for AGW is now so massive that it is beyond all reasonable doubt!

Sorry PC.
Your summary was just another opinion piece.
I know you can't produce a falsifiable scientific model (that is not false) for global warming because it doesn't exist.

A nice summary as you put it is not science.. sorry.

This topic is going nowhere. Thanks Adrian.

butch wrote:Sorry PC.
Your summary was just another opinion piece.
I know you can't produce a falsifiable scientific model (that is not false) for global warming because it doesn't exist.

A nice summary as you put it is not science.. sorry.

This topic is going nowhere. Thanks Adrian.

There’s one single and simple reason why it’s so hard to disprove climate change: because it’s real. You cannot disprove what is really happening!

Doug aka (planetcare)

there is one simple reason and that is you mis-spelt one word "disprove" because is should be spelt "prove" You cannot prove it is really happening

nofakenewsplease wrote:Doug aka (planetcare)

there is one simple reason and that is you mis-spelt one word "disprove" because is should be spelt "prove" You cannot prove it is really happening

Absolutely we can prove its happening! The earths temp is rising faster than any time in 800,000 years for example.