Real World: Monitoring Earth's Energy Budget with CERES

[arbide2]

Look up Richard Lindzen´s paper on the earth´s energy budget and you will find that CERES actually reports the opposite, (science is numbers, nothing more) of what Lin Chambers says in this video.

[Silentsam7532]

I just realised how bad this video is. If you look at the actual numbers the imbalance that they are talking about is less then half a percent. The room for error in their testing is more then this. Their own margin for error is greatter then the imbalance they have measured.

Plus they are only using some satellites that test a very small area at a time.

People dont understand that you cant worked up over theories that cant even be tested reliably.

[WombatsOnUTube]

1 W/m2 will cause warming, and that warming will continue while there is an energy imbalance.

Global warming is only 0.02°C per year.

The numbers are about right.

NASA will tend to use the satellites that are up there rather than the better ones that are purely hypothetical. They turn in less hypothetical measurements. And small samples rapidly build up a statistically accurate picture.

[WombatsOnUTube]

Because the cost of adaptation is 5-20% of the cost of amelioration, it is financially correct to get "worked up" if the confidence is as low as 20%.

The confidence is about 90%.

And satellite energy imbalance measurements can be confirmed with ocean heat content measurements.

[Silentsam7532]

Do you actually believe it doesnt snow in Antarctica? You think all that snow and ice is ancient and melting?

Antarctica does snow and does so more in a warmer climate when water evaporates off the ocean and falls on the polls.

Considering the world stopped warming after 1998 I dont know why people still talk about global warming, or one tiny part of the climate system that has never been a major driver.

[WombatsOnUTube]

It snows in parts of Antartica, especially the peninsular.

I said it doesn't snow at the south pole.

Precipitation is about 2.5mm annually. One of the driest places on the planet.

1998 was warm because of the strongest recorded El Nino. The climate is warming faster than normal. This decade is 0.19°C warmer than the 1990s, which is a faster warming that the recent trend of about 0.16°C per decade.

[Silentsam7532]

Records Ive seen show the temperature has leveled off and in some places fallen as this decade went on.

Besides all that a bit of warming would be good. Its been warmer then this before and that has always been a good thing. Warming doesnt spell disaster.

What easier for you, the winter or the summer?

If you look at the whole world then nothing much has really changed that much.

Of course the antarctic is the driest place, all the water is frozen. The ice there is growing by the way, not melting

[WombatsOnUTube]

The "levelling off" is not in the long term trend, just a warm 1998. The trend is the 00s are 0.19°C warmer than the 90s.

Warming is not good. 300,000 deaths per year, and estimated 25% biodiversity drop committed by 2050.

If you look at the whole world there has been a 29% biodiversity drop in the 35 years to 2005. That's a huge change.

Some studies say the Antarctic ice sheet is growing some say shrinking.

Antarctica is a desert because of the low humidity, not the ice.

[Silentsam7532]

Your claims of 300000 deaths per year due to heat are funny. Nothing could be further from the truth. Guess thats why you removed it.

Freezing to death kills far more people every year then heat stroke or other heat related illnesses.

Before you start dont bother with malaria, GW doesnt spread it in any way. Any Canadian should laugh when they here mosquitoes are not found in cold areas. I think the worst Malaria outbreak ever was in Siberia.

Pesticides are Africa's answer to Malaria.

[WombatsOnUTube]

That's stupid. Either 299,999 or 300,001 is further from the truth. But certainly it is a highly uncertain estimate. It is however the best estimate that we have. The estimate was well publicised in the media.

CVD kills more people than any other cause, contribution of heat is not generally included on the death certificate, so your claim is difficult to back up. The 300,000 deaths are mostly from diarrhoea, starvation and malaria.

Global warming has increased malaria's range in Africa.

[Silentsam7532]

malaria has nothing to do with global warming, if those people had proper hospitals and sewage those problems would go away.

The reason they blame malaria on global warming is an inaccurate idea that mosquitoes are mainly found in warmer climates and that warmer climates will spread them. This is wrong in every aspect.

People actually freeze to death and die in the winters. it is far harder to live in a colder climate then a warmer one. There is more life in the warmer areas of the world.

[WombatsOnUTube]

Pesticides help, but South America's experience shows you can't just dump cumulative ones in the environment, because the mosquitoes go through generations faster than their predators, so they evolve a resistance to the pesticides faster. By the time such spraying was stopped with DDT, it was associated with an _increase_ in malaria cases in El Salvador.

(And mosquitoes were found that _required_ small amounts of DDT to breed).

WHO says that indoor spraying and mosquito nets is effective.

[Silentsam7532]

These are small trends over extremely short periods of time. In the long run there is nothing abnormal with the current climate.

We are still coming out of cool period in the earths history. Ofcourse there is warming, and thats all the scientists agree on, is that its gotten warmer. They dont agree that man causes it.

model builders tend to belive its due to man, meteorologists tend not to.

[WombatsOnUTube]

The science does not agree with you that there is nothing abnormal in the climate.

Greenhouse gases are 45% higher than normal. Greenhouse effect will follow.

Meteorologists also believe that it is due to mam.

The American Meteorological Society, The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, The Royal Meteorological Society and The World Meteorological Organization have all released statements supporting the science behind AGW.

[Silentsam7532]

greenhouse gasses are 45% higher? Thats changing the numbers. CO2 is higher and thats only a trace gas, not a major part of the greenhouse effect.

The amount of CO2 man produces is very small. For every 100000 molecules of air we add 1 CO2 molecule every 5 years. This isnt going to cause a drastic change.

I am taking this from a climatologist. Changes in CO2 are measured in parts per million.

Satellite data shows nothing alarming. You need to read what the scientists say, not the journalists.

[WombatsOnUTube]

270ppm natural. 390ppm current. 44.4% increase.

Trace gas does not imply not a major part of the greenhouse effect.

The 45% increase in CO2 is from combustion of fossil fuels.

Satellite data only goes back 30 years, and the technology has changed over that time. It is non trivial and arguable to interpret and calculate a temperature at surface.

Land based temperature measurements are better.

NASA _are_ scientists.

[Silentsam7532]

Not all of the raise in CO2 is from man, but a good part of it is.

Land based temperatures are actually not all that great, they only tell you the surface temperature. Sattelite data is still good, but bad at looking int the energy balance your talking about.

You need to watch the whole world at the same time to really get a reading on that.

The weather system is still far from being understood and it plays a greater roll the the greenhouse effect in saying what the temperature will be.

[WombatsOnUTube]

All of the rise in CO2 is from man. More than all - fossil fuels plus cement has released about twice the CO2 required to cause the observed increase in atmospheric concentration. This is because both the oceans and terrestrial biosphere have been carbon sinks.

Surface temperature is important because that is the metric for global warming. Satellite data has little history, and even over that time no consistency of instrumentation. And interpretation is non trivial.

[WombatsOnUTube]

CO2 accounts for about 9% of the total (33°C) greenhouse effect, if you don't count overlap with other greenhouse gasses, or about 26% if you do.

Water vapour accounts for about 36% or 66%. 95% isn't close.

But CO2 changes the climate because it stays in the atmosphere for centuries, whereas water only stays in the atmosphere about a week.

Hydro power tends to release a lot of methane as the vegetation in the new lake rots.

You have to consider birds (and bats) when you locate wind farms.

[Silentsam7532]

Why would they want the budget to be balanced? That would equal no life on the planet. Plants and other life absorbs that energy and uses it, not reemitting it.

[WombatsOnUTube]

Energy is not destroyed when it's "used", mate. It all ends up as heat eventually.

If the budget is not balanced, that's global warming.

[Silentsam7532]

Ofcourse it is used, and yes everything ends up as heat eventually. There is a lot of lag time involved there.

But since you mentioned it I find it amusing that people think solar power was a good thing to prevent global warming. Solar power has the exact opposite effect.

It hold in the suns energy and doesnt reflect it out. Much more then CO2 does. Not that CO2 has ever been proven as a driver of our climate.

[WombatsOnUTube]

There's no time lag. It there's more energy in than out today, the globe is warming today.

I didn't mention Solar Power, but photovoltaic cells do take a lot of manufacturing. Wind and Nuclear are today's technology's cost competitive low CO2 emissions energy sources. Today's PV cells are low albedo, but CO2 covers the whole world, whereas PV cells cover hardly any of it.

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because of the frequencies in its absorbance spectrum. It drives the climate.

[Silentsam7532]

But dont forget that CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas. Making up less the 5% of total green house gases. Water vapour being 95% is the most important green house gas.

At least you dont see solar as a good power source. I would say that Hydro power is still a great source of power.

large wind farms have had direct immediate effects in the local climates around them and there should be a little research put into that. I dont think PETA like the birds that die, but who cares about PETA.

[WombatsOnUTube]

CO2 accounts for about 9% of the total (33°C) greenhouse effect, if you don't count overlap with other greenhouse gasses, or about 26% if you do.

Water vapour accounts for about 36% or 66% respectively.

But CO2 changes the climate because it stays in the atmosphere for centuries, whereas water only stays in the atmosphere about a week.

Hydro power tends to release a lot of methane as the vegetation in the new lake rots.

PETA are quacks, and distract from serious animal rights groups.

[WombatsOnUTube]

You do have to consider birds (and bats) when you locate wind farms.

[Silentsam7532]

Water vapor is always in the atmosphere and according to climatologists account for 95%, not 33 - 66 %. CO2 doesnt hold the heat forever, it does let it go. The funny thing about CO2 is that as you increase the concentration the heat it hold falls off.

CO2 helps the world so much plants and trees everyone are so worried about breath CO2 and grow better as it increases.

Climate change isnt something we should be concerned about and distracts from real problems.

[WombatsOnUTube]

Wrong on two points.

Water Vapour is not always in the atmosphere. Humidity is zero at the poles and in some deserts.

According to climatologists it does not count for 95%.

see: Earths Annual Global Mean Energy Budget

J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth,

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 78, No. 2, February 1997 Table 3.

H2O 60% clear sky, CO2 26% clear sky.

[Silentsam7532]

You do know that it snows on the poles right? Besides this Antarctica is still growing, not shrinking. Only a tiny portion that juts north is melting at all.

According to other climatologists it does account for 95% Its easy in any field to find many different scientists that see things differently.

Oh, and hat does CO2 26% mean? You know it only accounts for 0.3% of out atmosphere.

[WombatsOnUTube]

It snows a little at the north pole. It doesn't at the south pole.

CO2 26% means 25% of the greenhouse effect is due to CO2.

H2O 60% means 60% of the greenhouse effect is due to H2O.

Not 95%. Look up the paper. You are wrong about that.

[Silentsam7532]

Reading a books by a climatologist right now and he states that water vapor accounts for 60-90% of the greenhouse effect. He states this does not include clouds which also have a strong impact on the amount of radiation going into and out of the atmosphere.

Any person saying scientists are all agreed is plain wrong. Nothing about Global warming is proven except that the worlds average temperature went up very slightly.

[WombatsOnUTube]

Then the book is agenda driven rubbish.

Water vapor accounts for 36-66% of the greenhouse effect.

To get to 85% you need to include clouds, which are not water vapor.

90% is just stupid.

Scientists are agreed on some things. Such as that the current warming is mostly due to human activity.

[Silentsam7532]

No, thats what scientists dont agree on, they dont agree its due to human activity.

There are scientists who point out the obvious flaws in global warming theories and when anyone mentions one of them they are just dismissed.

People who believe in global warming wont accept listening to a different view point.

You have to get an understanding of science before listening to the debate, then it becomes pretty obvious that there isnt much of a case to support the AGW theory.

[WombatsOnUTube]

Of the 928 scholarly papers with the ISI keywords "global climate change" in the decade to 2003, not one took the position that the current warming is mostly natural.

Scientists agree.

People who don't believe in global warming don't follow the science.

[Silentsam7532]

Sorry, make that 0.033%

[WombatsOnUTube]

No climatologist says water vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. You will find about 36% or about 66% depending on whether they are including overlap. Sometimes you will see them include clouds with that which gets you to about 76% or 85%, not counting and counting overlap.

There's no way to get to 95%.