It Takes Years For The Energy To Make It’s Way

 

We’re all familiar with this picture……..image

How quaint. 

One of the many things I like to do, on occasion is argue the affirmative.  That is to say, “if what you say is true, then…… ”  Of course, this only works on people capable of “if/then” thought processes. 

Many skeptics, including myself, demonstrate how the earth’s temps haven’t increased over the last several years.  Depending upon the data set one wishes to use depends on the duration of the lack of warming.

image 

Either way you look at it, the earth, according to the experts, say the earth hasn’t warmed.  Skeptics are quick to point out this fact.  Typically, alarmist lunatics counter by saying it takes energy years to work it’s way back through earth’s systems. 

That may or may not be true.  One easy question to ask, is how many years?  One never gets an answer.  But, one doesn’t need an answer.

Consider this.  Many skeptics say, “It’s the sun, stupid!!!”    Perhaps.  Most people consider the sun as a constant source of energy.  Nearly all alarmists do consider the energy from the sun as a constant.  And, for today, so will I. 

The sun’s energy emitted to the earth can be averaged.  Sure, there are sun spots and solar activity which causes fluxuations in the amount of energy the earth receives.  But, for the most part, we can say the energy from the sun to the earth is constant.  It is also assumed, if the earth lacked humans, the energy re-emitted back from the earth would also be a constant.  Thus, a near equilibrium exists. 

So, the alarmist theory is that mankind, through his efforts, emits carbon dioxide.  CO2 doesn’t alter the energy from the sun, but, rather, contains energy re-emitted from the earth.  That is to say, the sun remains the same, and the earth would also, except CO2 forces the energy back down to the planet, warming the earth. 

The earth, then, would be emitting more energy back out to space, except, that dastardly CO2 is intercepting the energy and sending it back down!  It’s a never ending cycle of hotting!!!!  We’re all going to die!!!!

Recall, the atmospheric CO2 has been significantly increasing for about 250-300 years.  In other words, the earth should have been consistently increasing it’s energy output for quite some time.  Remember, this energy, once it leaves the earth, travels at the speed of light. 

How then, when we set yet another record for CO2 emissions, does the temperature not raise?

The earth’s emissions of energy are either constant or ever increasing under the CAGW theory.  Any atmospheric CO2 increase would then result in an increase in temps.  It cannot result in a decrease or maintenance of temps unless the energy emitted by the earth can fluxuate significantly lower than what it would averagely do for many years. 

Please, some lunatic alarmist, please drivel about the oceans…… PLEASE!!!!! 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to It Takes Years For The Energy To Make It’s Way

  1. David says:

    “The alarmist theory is that mankind, through his efforts, emits carbon dioxide. CO2 doesn’t alter the energy from the sun, but, rather, contains energy re-emitted from the earth.”
    ===============================================================
    Does it? Or, is some of the energy recieved by CO2 conducted, instead of radiated? If CO2 recieves conducted energy, from non radiating molecues, does it not then accelerate the release of that energy?

    • suyts says:

      You’re entirely correct! Note, I was describing alarmist theory, which only addresses radiative aspects ….. simplistic and incomplete as it is. :) But, even only addressing the radiative aspects, it is, as shown above, wrong.

  2. David says:

    Thanks, and sorry to veer from the central message of your post. It is just such a curious thought to me. One I have never seen quantified.

    Theoretically, a great deal of the suns insolation should bypass a non GHG atmosphere, both incoming, and outgoing as LWIR leaving the atmosphere cooler then the surface based on radiation only. However a great deal of the energy in such a non GHG atmosphere would, over time, be conducted energy, and would continually conduct to the cooler atmosphere until a balance was reached (back conduction)

    However, I have never seen any of this quantified. I have tried to ask Joel Shore, and one or two other competent alarmist, and they run from the conversation. Thanks for listening.

    • suyts says:

      Lol, they run because they can’t answer. I don’t think anyone can. The theory is correct. The question is how to quantify it.

      I was just thinking about how to express my simple thoughts mathematically. To express conduction with in it would be a challenge. At least, for me it would. Either way, it goes to demonstrate the simplistic view alarmists take.

  3. David says:

    I agree. In general I am a bit galled when the left claims to be more nuanced, as in reality their messsage is always extremely simple, ie – Domestic Policy; rich guy bad, poor guy good. CAGW theory; Man made GHG bad, make planet hot, melt ice, oceans rise. Foreign policy; Everybody wants peace, just talk to them, their are no bad guys except mean selfish republicans who want war. Etc add nauseam.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Oceanic response can’t be too long or you wouldn’t see the ~0.3 C swing in the 60 year cycle, which appears to be an ocean driven cycle. The 0.3 C swing alone corresponds to 2/6ths of temperature rise during the 20th C. Solar is another 3/6ths via the Svensmark mechanism + TSI leaving 1/6th for everything else including CO2.

    If ocean response was really slow you would not have such a clear cycle.

    The shape of the temperature curve over the last 15 years is consistent with the 60 year cycle and the solar forcing, since both have just gone over their peaks. CO2 is not strong enough to overcome this fall.

    • suyts says:

      That’s true. My unstated point was that regardless of how slow it was, there’s no described mechanism which reverses orlessens earth’s IR emissions. Slow the increase, perhaps, but what causes it to lessen? And, less it must be, if the temps have remained the same while CO2 has increased. —— according to alarmist stupidity.

  5. DirkH says:

    One of the primary problems in writing climate models is maintaining energy conservation. As the models are hacked-together Fortran code, It’s easy to have some rounding errors that over time lead to a vanishing of the energy in the system or a runaway warming without any outside net imbalance.

    Of course, this could be accounted for by doing double-entry bookkeeping but I don’t know if the alarmists ever implemented that. As they usually have no QA, I wouldn’t bet on any of the models really maintaining conservation of energy. They probably just rig them until the temperature rise pleases them.

    • suyts says:

      Any programing ever done was to know the desired end result. Alarmists aren’t smart enough to keep a separate book. They can’t even do the first one right.

      But, yes, the point is they have to describe a mechanism which actually decreases the amount of IR emissions from the earth after over a century of supposed accumulation of energy derived from continuous increases of atmospheric CO2. They can’t.

    • Bruce says:

      “over time lead to a vanishing of the energy in the system or a runaway warming”

      I call these the heebeejeebees. When I first learned iterative modelling on Lotus 1-2-3 and had to run models overnight on the only IBM AT we had in the office I got the +10E36 to -10E36 bounces every time I made a mistake. I’ve been modelling 20 years since and the packages have slightly improved, but the heebeegeebees still strike occasionally.

      I know that you can turn black into white in computer models. I’ve produced and debugged models for billion dollar projects. To anyone without the self-mutilating gene for model auditing a model is an incomprehensible black box. And in Fortran, that makes it a diabolical incomprehensible black box.

      Climateer modellers are the last knights of a superior caste started by Herr Docktor Joeseph Goebbels. Godwin can get stuffed.

  6. philjourdan says:

    A scientists says: The data shows no significant warming in the last 15 years, and I do not know why. But I will study the issue for causation.

    A religious says: It proves AGW, and we are all going to die.

    Thus you have the difference between the skeptics (scientists) and the Alarmists (high priests).

    • DirkH says:

      Warmism is a degenerative research program:
      “Lakatos claimed that not all changes of the auxiliary hypotheses of a research programme (which he calls ‘problem shifts’) are equally productive or acceptable. He took the view that these ‘problem shifts’ should be evaluated not just by their ability to defend the ‘hard core’ by explaining apparent anomalies, but also by their ability to produce new facts, in the form of predictions or additional explanations.[6] Adjustments that accomplish nothing more than the maintenance of the ‘hard core’ mark the research programme as degenerative.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerative_research_program#Research_programmes

  7. cdquarles says:

    False premise no. 1; The atmosphere acts like a greenhouse. No, it doesn’t. A greenhouse limits mixing (advection and convection), not via differential IR radiation. 2. The TSI is constant. No, it isn’t, Sol is a G8 variable star. Solar output varies, maybe more than some think, or less than others; but solar output is variable. Nevertheless, Insolation at the surface varies a great deal, from place to place, minute to minute. 3. CAGW is based upon sound science. Nope, other than Carbon dioxide is active in some IR radiation frequency bands under certain conditions. 4. Carbon dioxide is a well mixed gas in our atmosphere. Nope, it is a variable gas, like water vapor is a variable gas. Carbon dioxide is subject to fluxes from the solid and liquid parts of the Earth, above and beyond fluxes that have a biological origin, human or the rest of nature. The exact magnitude of these fluxes are not fully known, yet they show up somewhat in the Mauna Loa data.

  8. cdquarles says:

    Quit demonizing Fortran. It is a very good language for translating mathematical formulas into computer code. The compilers have been around 54 years. It is an easier language for some of us oldsters to deal with than, say, C or C++ (ugh and think about this: Operating System kernels have been written in C since the late 70s and C isn’t as easy to check for correctness, especially for the early versions … so if you ever wonder why so many systems have OS bugs, remember C/C++ and some assembly thrown in just for ‘speed’). Fortran is even object oriented these days.

    • DirkH says:

      I didn’t demonize Fortran… so I don’t have to quit doing it.
      I’m going by what ChiefIO found about the GISTEMP code and what Harry said in HARRY_README.TXT . And by those accounts, the situation in climate science is that these people first of all understand themselves as “climate model experts”. Just as with M Mann who fumbled together his very own statistics algorithms, the “climate model experts” have probably no idea or interest in what guidelines or design methodology is used by professional coders, whether we’re using object-oriented or older modular software designs. And what we do as QA or regression testing, unit testing etc.

      And that’s a language-independent problem.

      • cdquarles says:

        Very true. I looked at GISTEMP and I remember HARRY_README. I tried to flowchart that mess but gave up. I even tried to find some automated tools that do flowcharting to help. I said what I said because so many people have demonized a language for a problem that really resides with the coders. I am sure many will agree that the codes were probably written by undergrad students (particularly the oldest codes) and not by professional coders (for several reasons … I suspect, for I have done some of that kind of work back in the 70s when I was at the university).

    • philjourdan says:

      I have an affinity for it. It was my first language.

    • Jim Masterson says:

      >>
      cdquarles says:
      November 15, 2012 at 9:40 am

      Quit demonizing Fortran.
      <<

      I studied programming languages most of my life. Why shouldn’t we demonize FORTRAN? The last best FORTRAN compiler was probably FORTRAN IV. When they started naming FORTRAN after the year, FORTRAN lost its original appeal and value.

      Jim

  9. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
    Please, some lunatic alarmist, please drivel about the oceans…… PLEASE!!!!!

    We know it’s in the Ocean – because…well, it’s hidden. We know it’s hidden – because…well, it’s in the Ocean.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s