Global Warming Gone Missing: 33% of World's Oceans Show No Warming Since 1981

[Sunsettommy]

CH3 Headlines

July 18,2011

EXCERPT:

The "world-ending" anthropogenic global warming caused by human CO2 emissions is supposed to be "global" except apparently it isn't; and often, it's not warming at all.

For example:

1. per the NOAA/NCDC data, the continental U.S. has actually been cooling over the last 15-years;
2. climate change alarmists are now finally admitting in the science literature that the world has not warmed since 1998;
3. the latest NASA satellite technology shows no ocean warming since 2002;
4. ocean heat content has basically been flat since 2003;
5. and finally, all measurements taken to identify the atmospheric "hot" spot required by the AGW hypothesis have not found it.

LINK

[Climate Realist]

That is because the Greenhouse effect from back radiation simply does not exist! As RW Wood and now Nasif Nahle have proved experimentally.

[Richard111]

(07-20-2011 05:58 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  That is because the Greenhouse effect from back radiation simply does not exist! As RW Wood and now Nasif Nahle have proved experimentally.

From both the Wood and Nahle experiments I cannot find data that directly relates to radiation such that you could calculate a change in temperature for a change in CO2 level. But they do indeed prove trapped AIR exposed to sunlight warms up. I do it myself. Given clear skies and about 3 hours I can boil water in my box. That is 100C plus.

My personal bias is towards understanding the the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the earth as a whole system. LINK

Quote:3.4 Is the "Greenhouse Effect" Really Necessary?
<snip>
From the diagrams supplied by Vallier-Talbot (2007, pp. 25-26), we may roughly determine the centre of mass for a one square metre column extending from two metres below the surface to 50 kilometres above the surface. Soils and clays amount to roughly 2 tons per cubic metre, with the atmospheric column having to weigh 10 tons in order to yield a mean barometric pressure of roughly 1000 hectopascals at the surface. The total column weighs 14 tons with the centre of gravity corresponding to the barometric median at 700 hPa. Referring once again to Vallier-Talbot (2007, p. 26) we may determine that on average, this pressure corresponds to an elevation of roughly a mile or 1600m above the surface. Given the observed average atmospheric thermal gradient of -7ºC with every 1000m of elevation above the surface (Vallier-Talbot, 2007, p. 25), we may calculate the average absorbing mass temperature as it occurs at the altitude of the barometric mean for our absorbing column. No doubt you've worked out that the temperature drop over a tropospheric ascent is 11ºC per mile, and we all know that the average surface temperature is 15ºC (Arrhenius, 1896, p. 239; Burroughs, 2007, p. 124). Notwithstanding 100 years of apparently constant mean temperature from Arrhenius to Burroughs, we may determine that the observed temperature at the altitude corresponding to the centre of absorbing mass is 4ºC or 277ºK. This, via the reasoning above, extends to an observed average absorbing mass temperature for planet earth of 4ºC or 277ºK. This is slightly cooler than the mean absorbing mass temperature calculated above from the solar constant (278.7ºK, 5.5ºC) even if we do allow for 0.5º warming over the last century. However, if we were to consider the impact of convective cooling, I think we can agree that the temperature we derive from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is well within the tolerance we must allow for such tests.

[Climate Realist]

Well the point of the Wood/Nahle experiment was to show that convection rules in a closed box, and back radiation has no impact whatsoever! That alone brings the whole AGW edifice crashing down.