National Geographic News

Ker Than

for National Geographic

Published November 10, 2013

It's called a "global warming hiatus" and it's been a puzzle to scientists. If earth is indeed warming up, then why have the temperatures of earth's surface remained relatively steady for the last 15 years despite increasing emissions of carbon dioxide? Some climate change skeptics pointed to this warming hiatus as evidence that global warming is not real.

Scientists have debated the cause of the hiatus. Could it be the result of a prolonged period of reduced solar activity? Or a cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean due to a global weather pattern known as La Niña?

Researchers now say they have identified another possible cause: According to a study in this week's issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, led by climatologist Francisco Estrada of the National Autonomous University of Mexico and Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, the global warming pause is an unintented consequence of an international ban in the late 1980s against chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, chemicals that were destroying the Earth's ozone layer.

Cause And Effect

In their study, Estrada and his team used a statistical method to match sharp declines in global temperature with reductions in greenhouse gases during different periods of the 20th century.

The team then looked for specific human actions that could have affected the concentration of greenhouse gases—and thus global warming.

One underlying cause that the team identified was the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty signed in 1989 that phased out CFCs, which not only harm the ozone layer but are also potent greenhouse gases.

While curbing greenhouse gases was not a focus of the Montreal Protocol, the preamble of the treaty did state that its signers are "conscious of the potential climatic effects of emissions" of CFCs.

The signers "recognized [then] that they may also have an impact on climate," Estrada said in an email interview.

Felix Pretis, a statistician at the University of Oxford in the UK, cautioned that the Montreal Protocol alone can't account for the full magnitude of reduced warming seen since 1998.

"While it has contributed to the warming hiatus, it does not entirely explain it," Pretis said.

The full explanation of the warming hiatus is unlikely to be a single issue, scientists say, and most likely has involved other factors such as natural climate variability and a pause in the increase of atmospheric methane, another potent greenhouse gas. Scientists don't fully understand the methane matter but think it may be related to changes in agricultural practices.

Not The First Time

The current warming hiatus is not without precedent. The scientists also identified slowdowns in global warming during the two world wars and the Great Depression in the 1930s, when greenhouse gas emissions were in decline due to global economic downturns.

Their analysis further revealed a pronounced rise in both temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations in the 1960s, which marks the onset of sustained global warming.

The new study is the latest evidence the rate of global warming is tightly coupled with human activity, noted Oxford's Felix Pretis.

And Estrada is hopeful that the new findings will help spur steps to mitigate the effects of climate change, leading to "actions ... to reduce greenhouse gases more broadly, in particular [carbon dioxide]."

Follow Ker Than on Twitter.

71 comments
Rod Keh
Rod Keh

So Jeff, you obviously know nothing about climate change or Physics or Thermodynamics, you don't even understand something as elementary as the functioning of a domestic water heater, you make ridiculous statements and can't back them up........................ so why are you posting on this forum?

Do your mommy and daddy know you're playing with the computer?

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

Seriously Jeff, give us a make and model! Come-on,............. be a sport! We poor backward Canadians have never seen that type of tank. You're sooo brilliant. It would be sooo easy for you. Come-on....... just the make then. Oh PLEEEASE!

Please-please-pleeease!

 

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

"you do know that a hot water heater's water is forced out of the water heater from halfway in the middle of it, not the very top of it, do you not? the hot water outlet tube extends into the water heater one-third to halfway inside of it"

Hey Jeffy, how about giving us the make and model number of this tank you keep talking about. I'm sure my friends in the heating and air-conditioning industry will be very interested. They all enjoy a good belly-laugh!  (:

John C.
John C.

Another amazing prediction after the fact.

Sure, there might be some uncertainty regarding the specifics of global warming. But we can take comfort in the knowledge that it will be fixed by the same people who are doing such a wonderful job "fixing" health care.

Justin Case
Justin Case

Helped. That is probably accurate and it is pretty faint praise if you ask me. I am not sure how the PC winds blow on this, so I might as well call it as I see it. 

Humans can do a lot better at using resources more wisely. I doubt the Montreal Protocol, although well intentioned and apparently well executed, has amounted to much. I am thinking that huge wildfires, volcanoes, and lots and lots of coal particulates are chilling things these days. Obviously, that will not last forever, so humans have to make cuts where they can and at least go for the low hanging fruit for reducing emissions.

Giving humans too much credit is probably not productive. Giving humans a little credit is probably productive. Let's see how the PC winds are blowing in the comments, shall we?

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

You have love the greenhouse zealots. They can't mount a descent  logical or rational defense of their theory based on the laws of Physics or Thermodynamics. It's all this dogma or that, or everybody else believes this, so it must be true. Their beliefs are just that, beliefs. It's all based on just blind faith and their minds are made up so don't try and confuse them with the facts. The facts don't count and don't enter into it. Nothing has changed since the days of Galileo. Like all zealots everywhere, if anyone dares to utter a dissenting view , they are labeled heretics and the devout must make every effort to try to crucify or discredit them, however lame those efforts may be. Zealots are same everywhere, they find thinking to be a painful experience that must be avoided at all cost. That's why they have their dogma, so they never have think.

The facts speak for themselves, The Greenhouse Effect theory predicts none of the measured and recorded phenomena associated with global warming, 12 of which I have listed below and there are many more. My theory predicted all of them, which is also explained below.

QED


Chris Crawford
Chris Crawford

Might I suggest that, since Mr Keh has clearly established himself as a troll, that we decline to feed the troll in the future?

Chris Crawford
Chris Crawford

The author of this story doesn't understand the underlying science. The hiatus is in atmospheric temperatures, not global temperatures. The atmosphere contains less than 10% of the global surface heat; the oceans contain 90% of the global surface heat. The ocean's surface is warmed by the greenhouse effect, and then that heat is transferred to the deep ocean by convective processes (water moving down). Those convective processes are extremely complex and not at all stable. 

The evidence suggests that for the last fifteen years the ocean has been undergoing a substantial increase in its convective processes, resulting in more heat being transferred to the depths. This has drained heat from the surface. The ocean's surface is the primary influence on air temperatures. This explains the hiatus in the rise of air temperatures. Once the ocean depths have heated sufficiently, the convective processes will slow down and air temperatures will resume their rise.

This is why climate is defined to be weather conditions that persist for at least 30 years. The heat capacity of the oceans is so large that any plausible increase or decrease in the earth's heating/cooling processes would take at least 30 years to reach equilibrium with the earth's oceans. Hence, talking about a 15-year hiatus in air temperatures is rather like talking about the change in economic growth because the stock market rose by 10 points one morning. 

Debra Desarmeaux
Debra Desarmeaux

Recheck your spelling on paragraph 3,  "unintented" consequences???  Is there no one who checks articles?

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

“It's called a "global warming hiatus" and it's been a puzzle to scientists.”

This has been the hallmark of every discovery of phenomenon related to global warming for the last 30 years, the new discoveries of which always and without fail, comes as a surprise and a puzzle to climate scientists. Why is that? The reason is simple, because The Greenhouse Effect theory did not predict it, that’s why.

FYI, the purpose of any theory is to be able to make predictions of future events or phenomena, in order to be able to test the theory and to be able to propose a course of action. What good is a theory that doesn’t predict anything accurately and what it does predict turns out to be erroneous? Why would the climate science community continue to hold on to and shore up and support such a theory? Any other scientific body would discarded such a theory, out of hand and start looking for a new one, as would have done, the Particle Physics community if the Higg’s Boson had not been verified……………. If the wine is bad, throw it out!….. If theory doesn’t work, throw it out!

AGW is an indisputable fact! The Greenhouse Effect theory is not the mechanism of GW, which is another indisputable fact! It is only the climate science community’s tenacious grasp on this totally erroneous theory that has allowed AGW to continue to be disputed by the skeptics! The true mechanism of GW has predicted every phenomenon observed and recorded, that has been associated with GW for the last 25 years, without exception, including the above mentioned,"global warming hiatus"!

Global warming has absolutely nothing to do with the reflective index of CO2, The Greenhouse Effect or Solar radiation. It has everything to do with CO2’s Thermal Conductivity, its insulating properties and the rate of heat flows from the interior of our planet.

The facts are, that The Greenhouse Effect did not predict any phenomenon associated with global warming, from the rising temperature on the oceans floors to the melting of polar sea ice from below or the melting of glaciers on their bottom and the associated increase in their rate of slide to increased desertification or the loss of aquifers, the dying of forests, the melting of clathrates on the oceans floors and the subsequent release of Methane or the recently discovered temperature rise of the the subsurface seas, the recent decline in the rate of global warming, the list goes on and on. However, all of these phennomena are predicted and in fact were predicted by myself and it all points to one thing, the heat is coming from below. The heat is coming from inside the planet, not the Sun and this has nothing what so ever to do with The Greenhouse Effect!

One of the biggest hurdles to understanding our planet and its environment is an apparent inability on the part of most people to be objective and be able to remove themselves from the equation and try and see things from our planet’s perspective.

Our planet is not sitting on a nice warm planet as we are, so it doesn’t experience the Sun heat in the same way that we do. Our planet is floating in the cold emptiness of Space where the background temperature is about -270 degree C. and at that temperature the Sun’s heat is barely perceptible in the larger scheme of things.

According to the best climate science estimates, the capture of solar radiation by our atmosphere is responsible for raising the surface temperature of our planet by about 30 degrees C. If the background temperature of Space is -270 degrees C., where does the extra 240 degrees of heat come from, that gives us our average 5 degree C. ambient temperature. You guessed it, from the interior heating system of this planet that provides the background temperature that allows us to appreciate the heat of the Sun, because without that internal heat, the surface temperature would drop to about -240 degrees C and I guaranty no one would notice the Sun’s heat because we would all be frozen solid. It is this background temperature that is colloquially referred to as climate.

The Sun’s radiation is responsible for creating weather, period. Weather is a dynamic and rapidly changing phenomenon which takes place over a matter of hours or even minutes and the radiant transfer of solar energy is also a rapid event, which it must be in order to create weather.

Climate change on the other hand is an incremental process that typically occurs over thousands or even millions of years as a response to the changing levels of insulating gasses and the very gradual change in the amount of stored energy inside our planet. Under the governance of the natural environmental system, these changes take place over a very long time because we are talking about heating or cooling the entire mass of this planet and that doesn’t happen over night.

The key point to bear in mind is that we are talking about conductivity, so what happens in the bulk of the atmosphere is irrelevant, in terms of heating and cooling of our planet. It is only what happens at the actual interface between the planet’s crust and the atmosphere, right at ground level that is relevant. It is here that the actual transfer of heat takes place and here that the actual thermal conductivity of the air comes into play.

In this scenario Methane plays quite a different role than in the greenhouse concept because in terms of thermal conductivity, Methane has the opposite effect to CO2. Methane helps to cool the planet.

In 2006, based on this environmental model, I predicted that the increasing internal heat would soon start to melt the clathrates on the floors of the oceans and there would be a sudden spike in atmospheric Methane. In 2007 a report was released that stated that there had indeed been a sudden spike in atmospheric Methane in 2006. At the same time I predicted that this spike in Methane would be the harbinger of a slowing of the rate of global warming because Methane does the opposite of what CO2 does. It helps to cool the planet. Well guess what the IPCC just finished telling us.

This theory and model predicts everything, The Greenhouse Effect theory predicts nothing!

When will climate scientists start to act responsibly and stop protecting their own vested interests at the expense of our planet and everything on it? When will they admit that the prevailing consensus theory is useless and listen to the voice of reason? Until they do, we and this planet remain at dire and mortal risk, because any action taken based on the prevailing theory of GW will inevitably produce an inappropriate and detrimental result.

jeff probst
jeff probst

hey bro, on a serious note, why dont you just go to college? its never too late. i mean, do you really want to work at a fast food joint your whole life? theres no chance for advancement there. what, you wanna be shift manager or somethin? what does that make? like 22-26k tops? bro you cant live off that, or raise a family doing that. seriously, you should go to school. dont you think that would be best for your family?

jeff probst
jeff probst

@Rod Keh hey buddy! how was your shift? did you make alot of mcgriddles today? LOL

jeff probst
jeff probst

@Rod Keh  so i was right that you were gettin ready for your Mickey D's job!! omg i am damn good!! LOL

jeff probst
jeff probst

@Rod Keh with the timing (3 am) and the extremely short responses back, its sssooo  obvious that you were gettin ready for your breakfast makin' job at Mickey D's. omg i got you pegged brotha! LOL

jeff probst
jeff probst

@Rod Keh so i see you posted around 3 in the morning your time. so let's try to figure out what it is you do exactly. you already got your wiki bachelors,  so its not school. and thats wwwaaayyy too early for an office job. you work at a fast food joint dont ya! cuz thats when you would need to go into work to start making breakfast! omg! thats hilarious! LOL!

jeff probst
jeff probst

hey bro why dont you just use your wikipedia degree and see if i'm wrong about the hot water outlet pipe. wanna know why? cuz you already have and saw that i'm right! man you canadians are so obvious! lol

jeff probst
jeff probst

@Rod Keh omg again no denial about your Wiki bachelor's degree! LOL so seriously, you've never gone to college have you?

Chris Crawford
Chris Crawford

@John C. Which is why we need to be debating how to respond to AGW. If we continue putting off that debate, we'll end up being stampeded into something stupid. It would be much better if we began a public discussion of our options now, and even tried out a few baby steps to see how cost-effective they are. 

Carbon taxes are an ideal starting point. We could begin with a simple carbon tax on the fossil fuels themselves, which would be simple to collect and, for experimental purposes, very low. We take such a small step that it cannot possibly cause the collapse of civilization (as so many deniers are wont to claim) and we actually measure the economic and environmental effects. If it works, we increase it; if it doesn't, we dump it.

We also need a renewed debate on nuclear power; the old saw that we don't need nuclear to replace coal has been disproven and now we must consider this options seriously.

We are already well down the path of bringing renewables up to speed; should we accelerate our progress there with further expenditures or should we reduce those expenditures we are now making? 

Then there are the many options arising from geo-engineering. We need to begin serious examination of these possibilities. I myself am chary of most of these, but I now know that we will have little choice but to deploy some of them. We should begin experiments to determine their cost-effectiveness.

But if we keep wasting our time with this idiotic (and very deliberate) diversion about the reality of AGW, we won't be ready when it really starts to bite us in the bottom.

Chris Crawford
Chris Crawford

@Justin Case The key idea here is that the Montreal Protocol had a beneficial secondary side effect. Its primary purpose was to address the more important issue of ozone depletion. The authors speculated that it might also be of value in slowing climate change, but at that there was too little knowledge of climate change to support anything more than speculation. This study demonstrates that there may well have been some additional benefits from the ban on CFCs.

I agree that the ban on CFCs really has not had much impact on the total greenhouse effect; the recent stabilization of air temperatures is more convincingly attributed to ocean vertical convection. 

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@Chris Crawford You say this as though it were scientifically proven fact. It is not! It IS shear, contrived speculation, without any basis in data or fact. It is just one more in a long list of feeble attempts by greenhouse proponents to try and rationalize after the fact, observations that don't agree with The Greenhouse Effect theory.

The Fact is, that measurements of our planets albedo prove that our planet radiates as much or more energy than it receives from the Sun. That means that there is no energy left over to heat the oceans to a depth of 1000 meters as the current conjecture suggests. All of the Solar energy absorbed by the oceans is returned to the atmosphere to produce weather. Sea water has a very high Specific Heat and even if the full measure of Solar energy were pumped into the oceans, it would still take more than 10 times the meager average of 250 Watts per square meter the Sun provides to produce the amount of observed warming.


Justin Case
Justin Case

@Rod Keh Regarding your second paragraph. I don't think a theory MUST predict the future to be valuable. I don't think that is a requirement for a theory either. Just saying.

I think your chief complaint about GW is that it drives policies that can be oppressive. I get that. Maybe you could explain that to people better. Explain to people that policies will have REAL costs to people rather than HYPOTHETICAL costs sometime in the future. As a compromise, maybe we should be promoting technologies that make economic sense AND environmental sense. There are plenty of those.

Another thing that you might consider is that the scale of subsidies, etc. applied to GW derived policies is really very small. Is it wiser to spend money on B-2 bombers rather than renewable fuel sources?

David Pruitt
David Pruitt

@Rod Keh There are so many problems with your statement I don't even know where to start.


Theories don't predict, they explain phenomena

Theories take a long time to flesh out, Climate change even more so because there are a huge number variables involved

Climate change is difficult to measure, we have very little data as it is

You can't say space sits at -270C and then completely ignore everything else


The heating of Earth's interior isn't well understood

The Earth's core would cool over time, meaning it can't warm up the surface of the earth, merely maintain a certain temperature if it were a prevailing variable

"I predicted that the increasing internal heat" And this statement pretty much means that you're only working to prove yourself right regardless of how flimsy your evidence is or the fact that it's one of the few correct predictions you've made. Please stop being a pseudo scientist, real scientists take months looking into minutiae before they even consider publishing. Or at the very least understand the difference between thermal conductivity and absorption.

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@jeff probst You seem to have a degree in McD but you still can't backup anything you say.

Make and model Jeff?

Chris Crawford
Chris Crawford

@Rod Keh @Chris Crawford I can assure you that my explanation is based on reliable evidence and sound calculations. However, I don't think there is anything to be gained by arguing with you.

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@Justin Case @Rod Keh

In a way you are right when you speak of the real costs of policies designed to address climate change but it is not that the costs might seem oppressive.

 Although the costs of mitigation may seem oppressive and even cause some hardship at the time, if indeed they are effective and save lives and property and infrastructure then they will be worth it in the end. However, if on the other hand trillions of dollars of manpower and resources are dedicated and spent but in the end the theory was wrong and the exact opposite happens and trillions more dollars are then lost to the destruction of lives, property and infrastructure because the response to the problem was inappropriate and ill-advised, then the costs are doubled and become truly oppressive and all the effort and resources spent, was a complete waste.

 If the prevailing theory is wrong, then its predictions are bound to be wrong and if governments then deploy resource to address nonexistent threats and ignore the real dangers, then everyone and everything will suffer severely and for no good reason.

 The test of any theory is whether or not it can make accurate and meaningful predictions. If it cannot, then it should be summarily discarded and new one sought. That is the scientific method. That was what the scientists at Cern would have had to do and was by all accounts willing to do, had they been unable to find the predicted evidence of the Higgs Boson. They would have had to discard “The Standard Model”. That is the scientific method. 

Climate science it seems doesn’t abide by or accept the tenants of the scientific method however. Instead, it just attempt to use obscure and contrived rationalizations that in some cases actually contradict the laws of Physics and Thermodynamics, to justify a theory that was 100 years out of date when it was resurrected more than 30 years ago and that is a recipe for disaster.

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@David Pruitt @Rod Keh Dito!

According to the definition:" Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining and making predictions about a given subject matter." 

You can't just make up definitions or restrict their meaning to suite your ends. Of course maybe you are just referring to The Greenhouse Effect theory in which case you are right, it doesn't predict anything but that's what I said to begin with so why are you using it as an argument.

"Theories take a long time to flesh out, Climate change even more so because there are a huge number variables involved

Climate change is difficult to measure, we have very little data as it is
"

I refer you to "Occam's razor", theories become unwieldy when they are erroneous and as a result require contrived and dubious rationalizations to explain observed phenomena, as is the case with The Greenhouse Effect theory.

And on the contrary, I don't know what planet you live on but on this planet there are mountains of terabytes of data on climate change. I suspect that is just you that lacks data.

"You can't say space sits at -270C and then completely ignore everything else


The heating of Earth's interior isn't well understood

The Earth's core would cool over time, meaning it can't warm up the surface of the earth, merely maintain a certain temperature if it were a prevailing variable" 

This passage is rather vague and incoherent! Is English a second language for you?

Maybe that's why you didn't understand the part where I listed 12 examples of predictions I had made that proved to come true and there are more.

Maybe once you gain a better understanding of the language you will be better able to understand what you read and maybe even do some study of the subjects you are commenting on. Then perhaps you'll be able to mount a rational argument.

John Barraclough
John Barraclough

@孟 阔 @Rod Keh Methane produces a warming effect, not cooling. Everything you just said is factually incorrect. Who has the vested interest, again?

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@jeff probst Everyone here can see exactly what I said, but go ahead, keep making a fool of yourself. 

So sad!  ):

jeff probst
jeff probst

hey you're the one who said water comes out of a water heater due to convection. hhhmm guess its convection at work to make cold water come out of the cold tap too, huh? lol... oh btw, how's that bachelor's from Wikipedia U treatin' ya? LOL

jeff probst
jeff probst

wait,  you're saying that the instance when you used the word "guaranty" you were speaking in a financial aspect? wtf? because that spelling of "guaranty" is only used in financial terms bro

jeff probst
jeff probst

omg so you do think that the reason water comes out of a water heater is because convection forces it out and not pressurization? you are not serious are you? lol

jeff probst
jeff probst

@Rod Keh @jeff probst so you do get your info from "internet university"! i knew it! you are so transparent my friend! maybe go to college and take a class in mechanics of fluid dynamics and you'll actually know what you are trying to talk about. lol!

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@jeff probst @Rod Keh 

@"alas you still have no understanding of why hot water comes from your water heater." 

You just keep putting your foot in you mouth. You can't seem to get anything right but trying to change the subject from convection to one of plumbing, to avoid having to admit that you were wrong just doesn't wash.

I realize that you have problems concentrating and maintaining a coherent train of thought, but try to stay on subject.

The subject is....................... CONVECTION!

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@jeff probst Maybe you should get a grip! The term "guarantee" is just as much a financial term as the other variant. There is no rule on usage written in stone. Get a life!

Now please, refresh my memory here, where exactly did I mention anything about massive currents or inlets or outlets for that matter. You do not have artistic license to rewrite my comments to suit your purpose or inject your own distorted interpretations, just because you can't stand to be wrong!

For your information, what I said was that the heating elements were situated at the bottom of a water tank because hot water rises and that is exactly why. Perhaps you can give us all an example of a domestic water heater that is built the other way round with the heating element at the top of the tank. I said the top, not the middle or anywhere in between, the top.

Your description is erroneous, incomplete and inept at best. FYI, hot water tanks are designed to take advantage of convection. The convection produced by the heating element's placement, facilitates mixing of hot and cold water and helps to ensure that not all the heat will accumulate at the top of the tank and leave the bottom cold, so the user doesn't end up with a short burst of extremely hot water which then quickly runs out, leaving them suddenly stuck in a cold shower.

Maybe you should get an education before you try to profess to be a professor.


jeff probst
jeff probst

@Rod Keh @jeff probst alas you still have no understanding of why hot water comes from your water heater. hot water comes from your water heater not from some massive current caused by conduction, but from pressurization. and in this case this pressurization is not in the form of a current in which you suggest. this pressurization is caused by cold water being introduced into the water heater in conjunction with the expansion of the heated water. you do know that a hot water heater's water is forced out of the water heater from halfway in the middle of it, not the very top of it, do you not? the hot water outlet tube extends into the water heater one-third to halfway inside of it... plus your use of the word "guaranty" previously is usually used in financial terms. so in that instance you are incorrect in its usage... maybe you should get your info from an accredited university class instead of "internet university" which is obviously where you get your information now

jeff probst
jeff probst

the massive current which you are assuming are happening inside of a water heater are first of all not massive, nor caused by heat alone. the reason why you get hot water from your water heater is from pressurization, which is not in this case a direct current. and most of this pressurization is caused by new water introduced into the water heater in the form of cold water via the cold water inlet. you do know that the hot water outlet pipe doesnt retrieve the hot water from the top of the heater but from the middle right? the hot water outlet pipe is extended to about halfway to two-thirds of a way into the middle of the water heater... plus your use of the "guaranty" is usually used in financial terms. so you are incorrect in its use in that instance... maybe you should actually get your info from a genuine accredited university class instead of "internet university" which is where you obviously get all of your so called facts.

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@jeff probst  

If you look it up you will find that mine is just one of two variation of the spelling of guaranty.

There can be no doubt that conduction is part of the heating process, which is what you are describing and that heat always travels to cold but if that were the only mechanism at work here, the water temperature on the bottom of the tank would be hotter than the water at the top of the tank because conduction operates in all directions equally and because the top is further away, the top would be cooler than the bottom. 

If you do a little research you will find that it is common knowledge that convection does indeed play a roll in domestic water heaters.



jeff probst
jeff probst

 @rod keh: your description of why a water heaters heating element is located on bottom is incorrect. the reason why is because of the heat from the flame from the element rises. the heated water in the water heater itself does not actually rise, nor does the cooler water sink. what actually happens in the water heater is the cooler water acts as a heatsink. the vibrations from the heated water molecules then in turn transfer their energy to the cooler water molecules causing them to vibrate,"heating" them. this is in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics... you spelled "guarantee" wrong btw

John Barraclough
John Barraclough

@Rod Keh @Chris Crawford "Modern climate science contradicts the laws of Physics and Thermodynamics and is an unfunny joke!"

No it doesn't, stupid. If you've ever actually taken a class in physics, you'd find that the Laws of Thermodynamics are integral in supporting climate science. Climate change is regarded as valid in an overwhelming majority of classrooms. It doesn't sound like you have taken such a class, at all. You keep using big words you don't understand, and it is plain to see to the rest of us.

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@Chris Crawford @Rod Keh Don't assure me, show me. I guaranty you can't!

All you're doing is spouting the ridiculous speculations of the greenhouse proponents but convection doesn't work that way. Thermodynamics is well proven science and convection in water occurs when cold water falls and warm water rises and not the other way round and it only takes place above a heat source not below. That is why the heating element in your hot water tank is placed at the bottom of the tank, not the top.

Modern climate science contradicts the laws of Physics and Thermodynamics and is an unfunny joke!

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@David Pruitt @Rod Keh

Apparently in this forum a troll is anyone with a dissenting view who refuses to be intimidated by bullying.

 “Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining and making predictions about a given subject matter.” was a direct quote from the Wiki site.

 You seem to want to reduce and degrade this discussion to the level of a debate of semantics. So be it.

 For the sake of argument and an amicable resolution, we’ll use your Websters definition, in which case I must stand corrected and admit that the purpose of a theory is not to make predictions. However, within the precinct and confines of the Physical Sciences, the proof of any theory, that which allows it to be elevated to the status of being accepted as valid ( I hope I am qualifying my statement sufficiently to satisfy your litigious bent), is whether or not it can make testable predictions that produce a positive outcome. As I have said several times, albeit more colloquially, the proof of any theory is whether or not it can make accurate predictions. Except apparently in Climate Science where consensus appears to be sufficient proof and the tenants of the Scientific Method are ignored.

 “Occam's razor is a philosophy that one should resort to a simpler explanation unless one needs the explanatory power of the details, clearly that's the case here”. This must be your own interpretation and it is erroneous. It matters not, how relatively complex a theory is, only whether or not is the simplest. It is the simplest theory that “faithfully” describes the phenomena that should be the theory of preference and choice and it is clearly not the case here, because in spite of all the complexity and the addition of a plethora variables, The Greenhouse Effect theory has still been unable to make a single accurate prediction of an as yet unknown phenomenon. Whereas, my theory which is vastly simpler is able to predict from first principles, every single phenomenon associated with global warming, without exception.

 “However you completely ignore the vast amount of cosmic radiation that bombards the surface of the Earth. Most of it it comes from the sun.”

 I most certainly did not ignore external radiation, I state:

“According to the best climate science estimates, the capture of solar radiation by our atmosphere is responsible for raising the surface temperature of our planet by about 30 degrees C.”

 This of course refers to infrared not cosmic radiation since cosmic radiation produces no heat and has no affect on climate, a fact that has been demonstrated quite recently and is discussed in an article that is currently circulating on either Yahoo or Google news site.

 “Since the core is cooler and nobody's really sure how it works you can't build an argument that it's responsible for the heating of the surface and of the atmosphere.”

First of all, even contemporary climate science admits that solar radiation does not heat the atmosphere directly. It must first strike the ground before being reradiated at an appropriate frequency to be absorbed by CO2, so any way you look at it, it is the planet that heats the atmosphere. But that is just the solar energy that is totally consumed in the production of weather and the fact of which is witnessed by our planet’s albedo. The background heating which raises the surface temperature from -270 degrees C. to about an average of 5 degrees C. which allows the Sun’s presence to be felt, is what we refer to a climate.

Secondly, I can’t thank you enough for this little tidbit of information. It is common knowledge I believe, that the Earth was much warmer in the age of the dinosaurs and warmer still before that but I was unaware of the fact that there was scientific data to substantiate that the Earth’s interior was also warmer, another substantiating fact for my theory. Thank you!

 “I saw only one prediction, you can't roll each piece of a large prediction and count it separate.”

It should be pretty clear by now that you only see what you want to see and interpret things to suit your purpose. The fact of the matter is, that each of the 12 examples were separate predictions formulated at different times, the proof of each was revealed at different times and each refers to a disparate phenomenon. They are 12 individual predictions of the effects of global warming on disparate aspects of the environment, not one. However, they share a common source, the foundation of the theory.

Your reference to Einstein is inappropriate.

“The data had to be looked at again to get a better picture of what was going on. With something far more complex like global warming it's easy to see why there are issues.”

Have you seen the movie, “Agora”? It is the story of Hypatia, a female mathematician, philosopher and astronomer in late 4th-century Roman Egypt, who investigates the flaws of the geocentric Ptolemaic system and the heliocentric model that challenges it. In the movie you see representative models of the geocentric universe. These models, contrary to what you said, are very complex compared to the actual heliocentric system. As it is and always must be, if a theory of model is wrong, it will inevitably become overly complex and cumbersome. The problem with the greenhouse theory is not that there are too many variables and aspects to the phenomena, the problem is that the theory is wrong and in order for it to work you have to add extra variables to compensate for its shortcomings but it will never be enough.

David Pruitt
David Pruitt

@Rod Keh @David Pruitt  

I know I'm feeding a troll but:

 Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining and making predictions about a given subject matter.

According  Websters:

Theory


an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

Nothing related to prediction in there

 I refer you to "Occam's razor", theories become unwieldy when they are erroneous and as a result require contrived and dubious rationalizations to explain observed phenomena, as is the case with The Greenhouse Effect theory.

You should understand the underlying premise behind Occam's razor, it's often mistated as here. Occam's razor is a philosophy that one should resort to a simpler explanation unless one needs the explanatory power of the details, clearly that's the case here. As an example I suggest you look up the geocentric model of the universe. It's the simplest but it's also very very wrong.

 And on the contrary, I don't know what planet you live on but on this planet there are mountains of terabytes of data on climate change. I suspect that is just you that lacks data. 

A terabyte out of context is meaningless. First our data is short term with respect to climate, only accurate going back about a century, as you indicate climate change operates on grand scales. And if you payed attention I was referring to the interplay of variables that make this a complicated task. To provide a short list of things that make prediction difficult: Ocean currents, Ocean salinity, gas makeup of the atmosphere at various temperatures, solar output, cloud cover, effects of the magnetosphere, vegetation. Bringing all of these together takes time, the task is far from complete but we're starting to get a general picture of what's going on.

This passage is rather vague and incoherent! Is English a second language for you?

Let me spell it out for you. First you state that space sits at near absolute zero (true) and the Earth is essentially dumping heat into space. However you completely ignore the vast amount of cosmic radiation that bombards the surface of the Earth. Most of it it comes from the sun.  

There are a number of competing theories as to what causes the molten core of the earth.For some time I was working with a group that was attempting to create a more accurate model of the Earth's innards but even they admittedthat the model would be inaccurate at best. However most theories tend to agree that the Earth's core is cooler than in the past. Since the core is cooler and nobody's really sure how it works you can't build an argument that it's responsible for the heating of the surface and of the atmosphere.


Maybe that's why you didn't understand the part where I listed 12 examples of predictions I had made that proved to come true and there are more.

 I saw only one prediction, you can't roll each piece of a large prediction and count it separate. It's not an example of a prediction it is a prediction. You can't prove a prediction came true, only that it's false. For reference see Einstein.

As one last example I'd like to point out why we didn't see climate change for a long time. When NASA launched the first satellite to study the ozone layer everything looked fine. In fact it came as a surprise to most when they discovered the hole over Antarctica. As it turns out the satellite saw the thinning over a long period. The data was thrown out because it was considered to be erroneous since it was so far out of bounds with expected norms. The data had to be looked at again to get a better picture of what was going on. With something far more complex like global warming it's easy to see why there are issues.

John Barraclough
John Barraclough

@Rod Keh @David Pruitt "This passage is rather vague and incoherent! Is English a second language for you?"
"
Then perhaps you'll be able to mount a rational argument."


Because clearly, ad hominem is a rational argument.

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@John Barraclough @Rod Keh  

I refer to documented facts like the fact that clathrates on the oceans floors are melting. Do you contest that fact? I'm talking about the fact that glaciers are melting on their bottom. Do you contest that fact?

You on the other hand are talking about documented THEORIES not FACTS!

You're just a small minded zealot who couldn't mount a coherent, logical argument to save his soul, all you can do cut and paste dogma.

Get a grip!

Consensus is not proof of anything except a desire to remain at the trough.


Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@John BarracloughIt is such a chore to explain thing to illiterates.

 In this sentence, "The fact is that my theory predicts everything and the greenhouse theory predicts nothing!", the term "fact" refers to the "predictions" made by my theory and the "predictions" made by the greenhouse theory. I note that you have made every effort to avoid dealing with the facts but of course that is understandable since you don't have a leg to stand on.

You have yet to address the facts, you have yet provide any rational scientific  rebuttal, it's all just, everybody else says so, so it must be true.

What crap!

You can take the reasoning of whom ever you please, it doesn't change the facts! 

By the way, if you were fluent in the language, you would by now have noticed that my theory does affirm AGW and that I have the least vested interests here.

John Barraclough
John Barraclough

@Rod Keh @John Barraclough What a troll. You have ZERO credibility when you claim that you are more scientific than an organization that explores the universe and has sent numerous shuttles, satellites, and rovers into space. Fail harder, troll. You are delusional.

John Barraclough
John Barraclough

@Rod Keh @John Barraclough "The fact is that my theory predicts everything and the greenhouse theory predicts nothing!"

Furthermore, that you keep harping that your theory is fact is laughable. A theory is a theory, not a fact. Empirical data supporting that theory can be considered fact or evidence, but not a theory. You clearly are not a scientist, let alone you have no idea what you are talking about.

You haven't cited any piece of academic literature, as no peer reviewed experimental study corroborates your view.

Stop pretending to know science, because those that do know what a sham you are. Climate change deniers specialize in pseudo-science, misinformation barrage tactics, and unsupported sweeping generalizations.

Nobody cares what you say, because it is so off the mark that those educated at the uni level know right away that it is false.

I'll take the reasoning of the University of Oxford and the like over your uninformed, delusional radio-talk-show rantings any day of the week. At least the former has a methodology rather than the totally unsupported (except perhaps by oilmen with vested interests) rantings of the latter.

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@John Barraclough @Rod Keh NASA doesn't disagree with me, I disagree with NASA and in this case they are as guilty as the rest!

The fact is indisputable and clearly evident, my theory predicts everything, The Greenhouse Effect theory predicts nothing!

QED


Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@John Barraclough @Rod Keh I am well aware of and fully conversant in The Greenhouse Effect theory and just because you all think the world is flat, doesn't make it so.

Consensus is NOT proof!

The fact is that my theory predicts everything and the greenhouse theory predicts nothing!

Read it and weep!

John Barraclough
John Barraclough

@Rod Keh No citations? Deflecting? Why am I not surprised?

Google "methane global warming effect"

Documented fact? The rest of the world disagrees with you. Including NASA. (If you're going to claim NASA is unscientific, you've lost all credibility.) Stop being a sore revisionist loser.

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

I don't have to make anything up. Everything I present is documented fact. Maybe you would be so kind as to give examples of what you say, or are you just making it up?

Rod Keh
Rod Keh

@John Barraclough It is you who needs to check the facts! It is only according to The Greenhouse Effect "theory" that Methane produces warming. 

CO2 has a lower Thermal Conductivity than normal air, so it acts as an insulator and is responsible for global warming. Methane on the other hand has a higher Thermal Conductivity than normal air and so acts as a heat conductor and so produces global cooling. While CO2 has increased by 40%, Methane has increased by 150%, but it is only lately that the concentration of atmospheric Methane has reached the point where its cooling effect exceeds CO2's warming effect. That is what caused the hiatus mentioned above.

As I said, my theory has predicted everything, the greenhouse theory has predicted nothing. Those are the facts!


Share

Feed the World

  • How to Feed Our Growing Planet

    How to Feed Our Growing Planet

    National Geographic explores how we can feed the growing population without overwhelming the planet in our food series.

See blogs, stories, photos, and news »

Latest From Nat Geo

See more photos »

Shop Our Space Collection

  • Be the First to Own <i>Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey</i>

    Be the First to Own Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

    The updated companion book to Carl Sagan's Cosmos, featuring a new forward by Neil deGrasse Tyson is now available. Proceeds support our mission programs, which protect species, habitats, and cultures.

Shop Now »