Peak Summer Temperatures Plummeting In Ohio Since The 19th Century

5 Responses to Peak Summer Temperatures Plummeting In Ohio Since The 19th Century

1. Eric Simpson says:

   September 15, 2014 at 7:30 am

   Meanwhile, Drudge is highlighting a story on the all time record level of Antarctic ice: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/record-coverage-of-antarctic-sea-ice/5742668

   An excerpt from a comment at the linked article:

   “Tony Worby, said the warming atmosphere is leading to greater sea ice coverage by changing wind patterns.”
   OK, let me get this straight. The Global Warming alarmists have been raising a hue and cry regarding the melting of polar [Arctic] sea ice. Here we have increased Antarctic sea ice and the same people assert that that is also because of Global Warming.
   A scientific hypothesis (Global Warming) that cannot be disproven by any data, or, conversely, is proven by all data is not scientific.

   Reply
   • lectorconstans says:

     September 15, 2014 at 7:39 pm

     It would be hard to disprove the theory, partly because it claims to predict global warming, which doesn’t seem to be happening. Disproofs of relativity, on the other hand, are easy to find: show that light isn’t bent when it passes a large object (like a star). Well, that didn’t work, so the theory is not disproved.

     We’d have to show that CO2 doesn’t cause warming. We could do that by adding huge amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere and take measurements. That’s not very practical.

     On the other hand, looking at real data – not the cherry-picked and “adjusted” data – seems to suggest that global warming isn’t happening, which doesn’t exactly support the theory.

     Reply
     • stevengoddard says:

       September 15, 2014 at 8:01 pm

       If you add a second nearly opaque window blind, does it make the room much darker?

       Reply
       • lectorconstans says:

         September 16, 2014 at 9:52 pm

         If it’s sufficiently “nearly” – not “completely” – then yes – but perhaps not “much”, but rather “a bit”.
     • Gail Combs says:

       September 15, 2014 at 8:32 pm

       lectorconstans says
       It would be hard to disprove the theory….
       We’d have to show that CO2 doesn’t cause warming.
       >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
       Steve is correct. Yes there is a ‘greenhouse effect’ but we are well into the exponential part of the curve where even the words ‘diminishing returns’ indicates too much of an effect. (Dr Happer’s work just squashed the curve flatter.)

       There were two comments by physicists on CO2 and back radiation recently that are illuminating.

       Peter Malcombe:
       http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/whats-up-with-that/#comment-357834

       Dr Robert Brown of Duke Univ.:
       http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/26/quote-of-the-week-howler-from-the-world-meteorological-organization-what-warming/#comment-1648000

       If I read these correctly, CO2 WILL absorb the IR photons in the correct wavebands but the overwhelming ‘reaction’ is for the energy to be transfered to the rest of the atmospheric molecules warming them. At that point, since hot air rises the energy is carried up. In other words all CO2 is doing is aiding conduction in a poor conductor, air.

       Of the small number of CO2 molecules that do emit a photon instead of transferring energy via a collision, a second ‘reaction’ is for the excited CO2 to emit at frequencies “in the wings” half of that energy escapes through the emission-wing “hole”. The energy emitted is minus a bit ( loss of energy to a recoil) so that is why the re-radiated energy is in the wings.

       Therefore the “Downwelling radiation” from CO2 is a tiny fraction of the amount the Climastrologists are claiming. AND since “LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO2 molecule,” The additional ‘manmade’ CO2 in the atmosphere means diddly squat.

       I was also lucky enough to go to Dr. Will Happer’s Lecture.

       Dr. Will Happer agree with Dr Brown and Peter Malcombe. The time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere. Dr Happer in his lecture also answered my question about where CO2 energy is radiated instead of being handed off via collision. Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface.

       Dr. Happer’s talk was mostly where the ‘theory’ used by the warmists went wrong when compared to experimental data and that this is why there has been no warming.

       David Burton put up on his website an audio and Dr Happers slides:
       http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/

       SLIDES: http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/UNC-9-8-2014.pptx
       Slides 22, 42, 43 and 44 are the critical slides.

       You can get useful background for understanding these three comments from WIKI
       SUBJECTS:
       Mössbauer effect (recoil energy lost during absorption)

       The Pound–Rebka experiment (VERY IMPORTANT because gases are moving randomly and in random directions)

       …The test is based on the following principle: When an atom transits from an excited state to a base state, it emits a photon with a specific frequency and energy. When an atom of the same species in its base state encounters a photon with that same frequency and energy, it will absorb that photon and transit to the excited state. If the photon’s frequency and energy is different by even a little, the atom cannot absorb it (this is the basis of quantum theory). When the photon travels through a gravitational field, its frequency and therefore its energy will change due to the gravitational redshift. As a result, the receiving atom cannot absorb it. But if the emitting atom moves with just the right speed relative to the receiving atom the resulting doppler shift cancels out the gravitational shift and the receiving atom can absorb the photon….

       Motional narrowing

       Voigt effect

       Reply