Heartland Institute attacks Pope's position on Climate Change

[Paratus]

Look, its quite simple when comparing Venus to Earth. Just ask yourself a simple question. What would it be like on Earth if tomorrow the atmospheric pressure increased 90X. Hint: the answer is with a formula already mentioned more than once in recent posts. No convection required, no more CO2 required. This should make it clear why Venus' temperature is the way it is and why it is so hot compared to Earth.

Yes let's take a look at that thought experiment. I agree that if we magically increased the pressure 90X the temperature would roughly be equivalent to the temperature on Venus. So again I agree with you in this point.

Here's my point and it's one you and dphantom continually miss.

What's the temperature and pressure of the Earth in this thought experiment the next day? Next year? Next Millenia?

Here's a hint. This thought experiment is not in thermal equilibrium.

Compare:
The Earth receives ~340W/m^2 (Watts per Meter squared - a watt is a unit of energy or heat over a length of time) over the entire surface of the Earth facing the sun. The Earths average temperature is about 16C. At this temperature the Earth radiates back into space at about 339.4W/m^2. Basically in equilibrium.

Now our thought experiment.
The Earth still receives 340W/m^2 from the sun, but due to our magic increase in pressure the average temperature is now 450C. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation gives the power at which a body radiates to space. :

Power/Area=Stefan-Boltzmann Constant x Temperature ^ 4.

For our example earth it's now radiating away over 17000 W/m^2. This is more than the 340 it receives. Our hot dense atmosphere is losing heat at a prodigious rate.

When matter radiates away heat it loses temperature. When that matter is a hot gas it looses pressure by PV=nRT as it loses heat. Unless our thought experiment includes an excellent insulator our hot high pressure atmosphere will shortly be a cold low pressure atmosphere.

Do you get it now? Venus cannot maintain a hot high pressure atmosphere without a massively good insulator between it and space. The only thing that's is between the atmosphere and space is the atmosphere - the atmosphere that is 97% CO2.

This is why you are wrong and so is the guy on watts up with that where you got this from.

 

[Bowfinger]

I never denied anywhere that Venus has winds. ...

How on Venus (he he) does the atmosphere circle the planet every 4 days. That would require wind. Wind requires temperature changes. The temperature doesn't change on Venus. ...

It always amuses me how some people will deny their own words, even though they're preserved in black and white for all to see.

 

[Paratus]

You

I never denied anywhere that Venus has winds. What I did say is winds do not explain the temperature, nor the fact that there is no difference between day and night. I also stated that in order to have winds you need a temperature change. Nice strawman you got there.

You know what, I'm tired of this little game. My patience has run out. Go fuck yourself.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html



Earth has speeds wind speeds 100X Venus. Winds or convection isn't the answer.

You know nothing.
The fucking wind speed is ALWAYS 0 at the surface. Look up laminar flow.

I'll post it again for you.
The wind speed in the upper atmosphere is several hundred miles per hour.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/S...ss/The_fast_winds_of_Venus_are_getting_faster

18 June 2013
The most detailed record of cloud motion in the atmosphere of Venus chronicled by ESA’s Venus Express has revealed that the planet’s winds have steadily been getting faster over the last six years.

Venus is well known for its curious super-rotating atmosphere, which whips around the planet once every four Earth days. This is in stark contrast to the rotation of the planet itself – the length of the day – which takes a comparatively laborious 243 Earth days.

By tracking the movements of distinct cloud features in the cloud tops some 70 km above the planet’s surface over a period of 10 venusian years (6 Earth years), scientists have been able to monitor patterns in the long-term global wind speeds.

When Venus Express arrived at the planet in 2006, average cloud-top wind speeds between latitudes 50º on either side of the equator were clocked at roughly 300 km/h. The results of two separate studies have revealed that these already remarkably rapid winds are becoming even faster, increasing to 400 km/h over the course of the mission.

“This is an enormous increase in the already high wind speeds known in the atmosphere. Such a large variation has never before been observed on Venus, and we do not yet understand why this occurred,” says Igor Khatuntsev from the Space Research Institute in Moscow and lead author of the Russian-led paper to be published in the journal Icarus.

Now my lunch break is over and I'm done with you.

 

[xBiffx]

You know nothing.
The fucking wind speed is ALWAYS 0 at the surface. Look up laminar flow.

Quoted for absolute fucking hilarity. Next time its windy here, I remember that it isn't really happening.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh cool, graphs. You should probably let the scientists know you have graphs.

Sigh.

 

[dphantom]

Oh cool, graphs. You should probably let the scientists know you have graphs.

thanks for adding nothing to the topic.

 

[JSt0rm]

thanks for adding nothing to the topic.

nobody in this thread has added shit to the topic. Climate change is not worth talking about. We killed the planet. Whoop dee do. Lets cry about it when there are 5 billion zillion other planets out there with life on them.

I wonder if space jesus has to go to all of those planets and die for space peoples sins over and over again? Then they are told they have domain over the planet to use it as they wish and he moves on.

Maybe god knew we would destroy ourselves and thats the circle of life? :awe:

 

[Paratus]

nobody in this thread has added shit to the topic. Climate change is not worth talking about. We killed the planet. Whoop dee do. Lets cry about it when there are 5 billion zillion other planets out there with life on them.

I wonder if space jesus has to go to all of those planets and die for space peoples sins over and over again? Then they are told they have domain over the planet to use it as they wish and he moves on.

Maybe god knew we would destroy ourselves and thats the circle of life? :awe:

Where have we killed the planet?

 

[JSt0rm]

Where have we killed the planet?

You wont live to see it so what do you care? :awe::awe: party on. :sneaky:

 

[disappoint]

I'm betting the Pope will be on Galileo's side this time round.

There may be a different Pope, but there may also be a different Galileo.

 

[Poptech]

@senseamp

So are going to continue to be a hypocrite and not apply your "scientific" standards to proponents of AGW?

Do you apply same standards to man made global warming theory skeptics as you do to proponents? Do you have rebuttals of articles skeptical of global warming too? Or resources for proponents of global warming to use for debating this topic?

Irrelevant, my rebuttals and resources are for skeptics and I never claimed otherwise.

Do you also realize that if supporters of man made global warming theory are wrong, maybe we'll be more efficient than we needed to be, transition to renewables when we could have been burning hydrocarbons? But if skeptics are wrong, the consequences for humanity are far more severe.

If alarmists are wrong and their policies implemented, energy costs will skyrocket, the cost of living will skyrocket and the poor will suffer more.

So if anything, you should be applying the burden of proof on the skeptics, who are asking you to wager the future of humanity on them being right, far more heavier than the proponents. But you are doing the exact opposite. Are you a fool?

The burden of proof is on the alarmists as they are the ones proclaiming catastrophic things are going to happen that have not. I wager my future on reality and so far everything looks great.

 

[Poptech]

The Argo floats exist and are used to measure ocean temperatures

You presented a graph with no data source.

1. Source your graph.
2. Show that it was directly derived from Argo data.

 

[Poptech]

NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. [...]

To arrive at their conclusion, the JPL scientists did a straightforward subtraction calculation, using data for 2005-2013 from the Argo buoys, NASA's Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites, and the agency’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites.

 

[Poptech]

We killed the planet. Whoop dee do. Lets cry about it when there are 5 billion zillion other planets out there with life on them.

George Carlin - Saving the Planet (8min)

 

[makken]

Yes let's take a look at that thought experiment. I agree that if we magically increased the pressure 90X the temperature would roughly be equivalent to the temperature on Venus. So again I agree with you in this point.

Here's my point and it's one you and dphantom continually miss.

What's the temperature and pressure of the Earth in this thought experiment the next day? Next year? Next Millenia?

Here's a hint. This thought experiment is not in thermal equilibrium.

Compare:
The Earth receives ~340W/m^2 (Watts per Meter squared - a watt is a unit of energy or heat over a length of time) over the entire surface of the Earth facing the sun. The Earths average temperature is about 16C. At this temperature the Earth radiates back into space at about 339.4W/m^2. Basically in equilibrium.

Now our thought experiment.
The Earth still receives 340W/m^2 from the sun, but due to our magic increase in pressure the average temperature is now 450C. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation gives the power at which a body radiates to space. :

Power/Area=Stefan-Boltzmann Constant x Temperature ^ 4.

For our example earth it's now radiating away over 17000 W/m^2. This is more than the 340 it receives. Our hot dense atmosphere is losing heat at a prodigious rate.

When matter radiates away heat it loses temperature. When that matter is a hot gas it looses pressure by PV=nRT as it loses heat. Unless our thought experiment includes an excellent insulator our hot high pressure atmosphere will shortly be a cold low pressure atmosphere.

Do you get it now? Venus cannot maintain a hot high pressure atmosphere without a massively good insulator between it and space. The only thing that's is between the atmosphere and space is the atmosphere - the atmosphere that is 97% CO2.

This is why you are wrong and so is the guy on watts up with that where you got this from.

Quoted for ownage. Beat me to it too. I love how he doesn't have a basic grasp of energy equilibrium and kept throwing out the ideal gas law.

 

[Bowfinger]

NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

As one would predict, you've approached this new study dishonestly, just as you have throughout the thread. You cherry-picked a few bits out of context while ignoring greater portions that contradict your denier theology. For example, from your link:

[ ... ]
Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."
[ ... ]
The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans ... is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.
[ ... ]
Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.

Landerer also is a coauthor of another paper in the same journal issue on 1970-2005 ocean warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Before Argo floats were deployed, temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean were spotty, at best. Using satellite measurements and climate simulations of sea level changes around the world, the new study found the global ocean absorbed far more heat in those 35 years than previously thought -- a whopping 24 to 58 percent more than early estimates. ...

Having your deceptive spin exposed, I have full confidence you will continue to misrepresent this new study on your blog.

 

[JSt0rm]

George Carlin - Saving the Planet (8min)

Humans cant think about 300 years from now. Its just not in our dna. Im just glad I was able to eat Chilean seabass before it is all gone. Just seafood in general is going away. I dont need a graph to tell me anything. I will be dead by 2070 for sure so whatever.

 

[fskimospy]

As one would predict, you've approached this new study dishonestly, just as you have throughout the thread. You cherry-picked a few bits out of context while ignoring greater portions that contradict your denier theology. For example, from your link:


Having your deceptive spin exposed, I have full confidence you will continue to misrepresent this new study on your blog.

Gee, who would ever have guessed that guy would lie again?

 

[Poptech]

As one would predict, you've approached this new study dishonestly, just as you have throughout the thread.

The parts I quote related to the actual study and the work they did in the study. The debate with Paratus was about missing heat in the deep oceans, this NASA study disproves that.

You cherry-picked a few bits out of context while ignoring greater portions that contradict your denier theology.

This statement is incoherent.

You actually cherry picked wording and distorted its context.

The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans ... is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

Did you even read that? It shows that the missing heat theory does not hold water.

Landerer also is a coauthor of another paper in the same journal...

That is not even the same study.

Please don't cherry pick the articles I present in the future.

 

[Poptech]

Gee, who would ever have guessed that guy would lie again?

eskimolie, I have not lied once while you have repeatedly dodged multiple questions.

1. How many papers are in the climate science literature?

2. How many papers in Cook et al. (2013) quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause)?

3. Where are the rebuttals to the 97 refutations of the cartoonist's paper?

4. Where is the peer-reviewed rebuttal of Dr. Tol's paper?

5. If a journal rejects a paper because it is not topical to the journal's scope does it mean the paper contains errors or is wrong?

6. Does ERL have well known climate alarmists on its editorial board?

7. Can letters written in scientific journals be peer-reviewed?

8. How many authors have contacted me to remove papers from my list?

9. Why was Pielke et al. (2009) originally included on my list?

 

[fskimospy]

We are still waiting for your citations, genius.

Additionally, when will you be removing your other lies about the papers you said were rebutted by peer review, for which you linked things that weren't peer reviewed?

You've only been posting in this thread for a few days but the lies are piling up.

 

[Poptech]

We are still waiting for your citations, genius.

Additionally, when will you be removing your other lies about the papers you said were rebutted by peer review, for which you linked things that weren't peer reviewed?

You've only been posting in this thread for a few days but the lies are piling up.

Just as expected, eskimolie continues to dodge the questions.

1. How many papers are in the climate science literature?

2. How many papers in Cook et al. (2013) quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause)?

3. Where are the rebuttals to the 97 refutations of the cartoonist's paper?

4. Where is the peer-reviewed rebuttal of Dr. Tol's paper?

5. If a journal rejects a paper because it is not topical to the journal's scope does it mean the paper contains errors or is wrong?

6. Does ERL have well known climate alarmists on its editorial board?

7. Can letters written in scientific journals be peer-reviewed?

8. How many authors have contacted me to remove papers from my list?

9. Why was Pielke et al. (2009) originally included on my list?

 

[Paratus]

The parts I quote related to the actual study and the work they did in the study. The debate with Paratus was about missing heat in the deep oceans, this NASA study disproves that.


This statement is incoherent.

You actually cherry picked wording and distorted its context.

Did you even read that? It shows that the missing heat theory does not hold water.


That is not even the same study.

Please don't cherry pick the articles I present in the future.

No, the arguement you and I are having is about the heat content in the ocean. You tried to change it to the deep ocean below 2000m because so far there is little heat transport to that depth. The graph I gave you shows massive measured heat gain above 2000m.

Here's the study it originally came from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf

The pic of the graph I linked to actually came from wattsupwiththat a well know denier site.

 

[Bowfinger]

The parts I quote related to the actual study and the work they did in the study. The debate with Paratus was about missing heat in the deep oceans, this NASA study disproves that.

You're lying again. Paratus didn't specify deep oceans; that's your straw man:

This is incorrect. While the energy stored in the atmosphere has slowed the energy stored in the ocean has increased by the energy equivalent to 1/3 of the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs.

This statement is incoherent.

You actually cherry picked wording and distorted its context.

Your reading impairment is not my concern (especially when you use it selectively like this to dodge points you cannot address).

Did you even read that? It shows that the missing heat theory does not hold water.

Yes, I did. Did you? I included the whole quote to be intellectually honest. I do understand why that concept confuses you.

Yes, the study acknowledges that their new data does not support the theory that all of the "missing" heat is in deep ocean waters. That doesn't discredit the overall conclusion the globe continues to warm. It just means one piece of their model needs more work.

That is not even the same study.

Please don't cherry pick the articles I present in the future.

Please go Cheney yourself. It was in your link, it refutes your denier theology, and I quoted it. Your discomfort with it pleases me. Perhaps you should limit your citations to work written by other deniers, thus avoiding pesky facts that challenge your faith.

Toodles.

 

[fskimospy]

Just as expected, eskimolie continues to dodge the questions.

1. How many papers are in the climate science literature?

2. How many papers in Cook et al. (2013) quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause)?

3. Where are the rebuttals to the 97 refutations of the cartoonist's paper?

4. Where is the peer-reviewed rebuttal of Dr. Tol's paper?

5. If a journal rejects a paper because it is not topical to the journal's scope does it mean the paper contains errors or is wrong?

6. Does ERL have well known climate alarmists on its editorial board?

7. Can letters written in scientific journals be peer-reviewed?

8. How many authors have contacted me to remove papers from my list?

9. Why was Pielke et al. (2009) originally included on my list?

It's both amusing and sad to watch you melt down when your viewpoint is threatened.