Rescue of trapped climate-change researchers from ice and blizzard finally succeeds

posted at 10:01 am on January 2, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

One of the more revealing events in climate-change research has come to a close, at least in terms of the rescue of 52 researchers stuck near Antarctica. The team attempted to recreate the 1911-13 Antarctic journey of Douglas Mawson, only to get stuck in a surprisingly expanded polar ice sheet. A video report leading CNN’s World page claims that they have been rescued and boarded onto an Australian ship that will leave shortly:

CBS reports that the rescue has succeeded, too:

A long-awaited rescue of passengers from a Russian research ship trapped in Antarctic ice for more than a week finally went ahead Thursday morning, with a helicopter safely ferrying all 52 researchers and tourists to a nearby vessel, expedition leaders said.

The helicopter was originally going to airlift the passengers to a Chinese icebreaker, the Snow Dragon, with a barge then ferrying them to an Australian vessel. But sea ice was preventing a barge from reaching the Snow Dragon, and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s Rescue Coordination Centre, which is overseeing the rescue, said the operation would consequently be delayed.

A last-minute change in plans allowed the rescue to go ahead, however. Those rescued were instead flown to an ice floe next to the Australian icebreaker the Aurora Australis, and then taken by a small boat to the Australian ship, expedition leader Chris Turney said.

“We’ve made it to the Aurora Australis safe & sound,” Turney posted on his Twitter account hours after the operation began. He thanked the Chinese and the Australians for coming to the rescue of the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalski, which has been stuck in the ice since Christmas Eve.

The nine-day crisis unfolded a bit like a Monty Python sketch. A Chinese ship attempted to rescue the MV Akademik Shokalskiy, only to get stopped by the ice as well. A third ship arrived, but could not reach the stranded researchers, either. The rescuers finally used a helicopter when researchers were able to build a crude heliport on the ice that surrounded them, but a barge brought in to move them outside the ice couldn’t reach the Chinese vessel intended for their transport — so the helicopter landed on another ice floe near an Australian ship that arrived.

Oddly, the CNN reports seem to be missing something fairly important to understand the reason why the researchers were out in the Antarctic seas in the first place:

At least the word “climate” appears once in their web report, although not as an explanation. It doesn’t appear at all in the CBS report. The Associated Press report similarly avoids this key data point. Scott Johnson called this expedition the “ship of fools,” and perhaps that can be applied to these reports on the denouement, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Hi Oakland, thank you for the positive and sensitive comments. I am going to sign off on this discussion because it is becoming too hurtful for my taste.

“Denier”: Makes reasonable argument.
Warmist: Insult, insult, insult, outright deceit, insult, lies, insult, insult.
“Denier”: Makes reasonable argument. Includes “you idiot” in his comment.
Warmist: How can you be so hurtful?!?!?!

fadetogray on January 4, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Raspberry on January 4, 2014 at 10:25 AM

I don’t have to refute the arguments of “respected scientists”. The measurements do that all by themselves. Recorded temperature rises are lower than EVERY model out there.

And someday we will have to have a discussion about what “respected scientist” means. It used to mean someone who dedicated their life to seeking the truth, was willing to admit when they were wrong and adjusted their hypothosies accordlingly and shared their data with other scientists to help improve the lot of humanity. In short, HUMILITY.

That doesn’t come close to describing the “respected scientists” we have now.

Like the ones at my daughters Ivy, where they lecture a woman should have sex with at least 4 guys so as to be able to overcome the temptation to form an emotional bond.

It all goes downhill from here.

None of this can be called science anymore. More like grant shopping.

WryTrvllr on January 4, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Like the ones at my daughters Ivy, where they lecture a woman should have sex with at least 4 guys so as to be able to overcome the temptation to form an emotional bond.

Well, at least they are right that it works. Today’s intelligentsia is rarely right about anything.

Unfortunately, they fail to also tell young women that sustained slutty behavior also generally inoculates them from being able to form a healthy emotional bond with a sexual partner. Sex becomes all about using people.

fadetogray on January 4, 2014 at 3:47 PM

fadetogray on January 4, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Their Malthusian teachings have crept into EVERY aspect of their classes. Even in physics class, the indoctrination continues.

I wonder if that genius with the biology degree realizes what it means to take the brightest women put them alongside the brightest men, and teach them to hate each other.

Social Engineering Success!!!(/\ whatever)

WryTrvllr on January 4, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Well I guess we can count oakland and rasperry out as wanting to have a rational and reasonable debate, which is par for the course when you try to discuss anything with liberals. Their religious advocacy for the fantasyland that they project onto reality is impenetrable.

Murphy9 on January 4, 2014 at 5:46 PM

All you do is write that it’s impossible to discuss the science on Hot Air.

blink on January 4, 2014 at 12:44 PM

I didn’t enter into the discussion flow attempting to talk science at all. But rather, I pointed out the continuing poor journalism of the author who wrote the article above. Morrissey has been, and continues to be, devoid of journalistic competence on just about any subject.

And, Mr. Morrissey’s comments had no bearing on what you call “CAGW”.

I’m happy to discuss and debate scientific issues with anyone who is willing to carry out a respectful exchange.

And, if you had attempted to begin such an exchange, I would have gladly engaged in one with you.

But, you bring no comment related to mine. And you bring little or no respect to anyone who has views that differ from your own. So, I have nothing else to say to you on this thread.

oakland on January 4, 2014 at 6:00 PM

I don’t claim to be educated in climate science.

Raspberry on January 4, 2014 at 12:23 PM

At least you admit it. There are those (above commenters) who actually don’t know anything more than denialist talking points from sites like Watts Up With That. You see the same misconceptions and outright falsehoods recycling over and over again.

I appreciate it that there are folks like you around who believe in civil and respectful exchanges. And I understand completely that you want no part of the petty and pre-adolescent comments that comprise the bulk of this thread.

Hope to see you around.

oakland on January 4, 2014 at 6:10 PM

I don’t claim to be educated in climate science.

Raspberry on January 4, 2014 at 12:23 PM

At least you admit it. There are those (above commenters) who actually don’t know anything more than denialist talking points from sites like Watts Up With That. You see the same misconceptions and outright falsehoods recycling over and over again.

Someday, Blink, these people are going to learn that their hallowed discipline also has to obey the laws of thermodynamics.

In the meantime, this uneducated bumpkin is going to get back to stacking firewood. (2 face cords during this discussion). We’ve got -27 F for a couple days coming up, don’t ya know.

WryTrvllr on January 4, 2014 at 8:34 PM

these people are going to learn that their hallowed discipline also has to obey the laws of thermodynamics.

Sounds like science here. Tell me, Wry, about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it relates to the “hallowed discipline”.

oakland on January 5, 2014 at 12:43 PM

LOL 2 days after whining that no science is discussed, the leftists are still just whining and bitching instead of discussing science.

Murphy9 on January 5, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Sounds like science here. Tell me, Wry, about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it relates to the “hallowed discipline”.

oakland on January 5, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Well Oakland, I apologize, I was following the first rule of circadian rhythms.

The second rule doesn’t apply here since we are not an isolated system. Since the sun is over 5 billion years old, I doubt our CO2 emissions have had much influence on it.

No I was referring to the first rule. This requires that the total amount of energy on the planet must be increasing, since heat, work, and energy are the same, and by your definition, we are trapping more radiant energy now that we have reached 400ppm.

With all those respected scientists out there, one would think it possible to harness this extra energy, but I haven’t seen that yet.

So, again, if this energy remains as heat, why did the US set more record colds last year instead of record hots. Oops, I forgot, weather. My bad.

Additionally Oakland, explain it to me. With your increased heat causing increased entropy, how do you get all those CO2 molecules to align and selectively reflect IR only back towards earth, and only at night.

Does the sun not emit IR?

WryTrvllr on January 5, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Oops. The first rule of caffeine has kicked in gear.

There haven’t been more hurricanes or tornadoes, as the first law would require. In fact last year was something of a bust. Oops again, my bad, weather.

Water levels in lakes throughout canada have been stable, or low. If their hydroelectric generating capacity were significantly increasing, our cost per KwH would not be rising, and the system would regain EQUILIBRIUM. Again, weather, not climate.

For that matter Lake Meade is still low, isn’t it. The earth is 2/3rds water still right?

The trout fishing in Greenland is still incredible, the wallleye haven’t gotten a toehold yet. They still import all their food. Unlike the vikings.

The Pacific ring of fire is still (geologically time frame speaking) on the wane. Which means I cannot find my own atoll to get away from pseudos such as the climate folk.

The Polar Bears are thriving. The Ice Caps are doing fine. And still, to this day, NO-ONE has explained to me what the hell the iceman was thinking crossing the Alps over a glacier, and decided to dig a hole MANY feet into the ice, to escape some “unseasonable” climate. Oops, weather.

In short, Oakland, it is YOUR side that chooses to dismiss objective observation because, well,……science.

By the way, my oaks and walnuts, with their tight ring patterns, in my northern clime show no sign of a growth spurt. I did, however, recently have to crosscut a 126 year old tree that fell across a ridge road, so I will make a measurement of it for you.

Anyway, the law of wives is now kicking in. Enjoy the cold spell.

WryTrvllr on January 5, 2014 at 6:25 PM

WryTrvllr on January 5, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Sounds like our Noble and Glorious efforts against the Dread Climate Change are working!

No time to slack off! We need more money for a bigger global regulatory infrastructure to put the squeeze on Evil Carbon to make sure we don’t lose our hard won gains!

More, more, more!!

After all, the Science (PBUH) is settled, and now we have proof carbon credits work!

I love Science (PBUH). Those heretics …. oops, I mean deniers, should be burned at the stake for their blasphemy! What? Oh. I mean for their being deniers like the Nazis!! And for being mean and insulting and stuff.

fadetogray on January 5, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Chis Turney follows John F. Kerrys ways and has now “Iceboated” himself.

Trade Mark by http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/

Lies kill.

Truth is life.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 5, 2014 at 8:11 PM

WryTrvllr on January 5, 2014 at 6:00 PM

So, again, if this energy remains as heat, why did the US set more record colds last year instead of record hots. Oops, I forgot, weather. My bad.

If the earth were a homogeneous object in its totality, and more heat were being absorbed into it than released, then I suppose that it wouldn’t make sense that there would be record cold temperatures last year at all.

Additionally Oakland, explain it to me. With your increased heat causing increased entropy, how do you get all those CO2 molecules to align and selectively reflect IR only back towards earth, and only at night.

Does the sun not emit IR?

I don’t understand how CO2 molecules – or any other gaseous species – could selectively emit in only one direction. The bonds in the CO2 molecule absorb and release heat in all directions. As “greenhouse gases” accumulate in the atmosphere, heat generally takes longer to pass through the atmosphere into space (and thus the enthalpy of the earth’s fluids and land masses have an average net increase). The sun emits radiation in a vast range of the EM spectrum, including IR. But what hits the earth can change frequency from some other frequencies to IR.

A coarse analogy can be formed by seeing how an actual greenhouse responds to radiation passing through the windows. The visible (and IR) passes through the glass. Some of the radiation in visible converts to IR on the surfaces inside the greenhouse. The windows let much – but not all – of the radiation pass back out. Much of the retained radiation eventually converts to heat energy, which warms the soil, walls and other parts of the greenhouse.

oakland on January 5, 2014 at 8:14 PM

There haven’t been more hurricanes or tornadoes, as the first law would require. In fact last year was something of a bust. Oops again, my bad, weather.

Why would the First Law require more cyclonic activity? I am thinking that, as global warming progresses, you would have fewer large cyclonic storms. If the poles heat faster than the temperate zones, you would have less contrast between the two, and therefore fewer incidents of contrasting air masses colliding. But that’s just my opinion; and I don’t know if experts would share this view. But we do see a possible increase in very strong storms – such as we saw in the Indian and the Pacific basins this year.

Water levels in lakes throughout canada have been stable, or low. If their hydroelectric generating capacity were significantly increasing, our cost per KwH would not be rising, and the system would regain EQUILIBRIUM. Again, weather, not climate.

Got me there. But I dearly love Canada (raised there until I was eleven).

For that matter Lake Meade is still low, isn’t it. The earth is 2/3rds water still right?

No, the earth is overwhelmingly mineral. The water and the atmosphere comprise a very small portion of the mass of the earth. Of course, the upper roughly 60 miles is mostly water (about 70% water at the surface is my understanding.

The trout fishing in Greenland is still incredible, the wallleye haven’t gotten a toehold yet. They still import all their food. Unlike the vikings.

What relevance to the laws of thermodynamics? May you catch many big ones.

The Pacific ring of fire is still (geologically time frame speaking) on the wane. Which means I cannot find my own atoll to get away from pseudos such as the climate folk.

what are the “climate folk”?

The Polar Bears are thriving. The Ice Caps are doing fine. And still, to this day, NO-ONE has explained to me what the hell the iceman was thinking crossing the Alps over a glacier, and decided to dig a hole MANY feet into the ice, to escape some “unseasonable” climate. Oops, weather.

Do you have authoritative information on the state of the Greenland ice cap? Don’t know what Polar Bears have to do with anything; perhaps you could explain.

In short, Oakland, it is YOUR side that chooses to dismiss objective observation because, well,……science.

What is “your side”? I didn’t know that there were “sides”. Please explain.

By the way, my oaks and walnuts, with their tight ring patterns, in my northern clime show no sign of a growth spurt. I did, however, recently have to crosscut a 126 year old tree that fell across a ridge road, so I will make a measurement of it for you

Neat. Let me know. Trees are cool.

oakland on January 5, 2014 at 8:26 PM

I don’t understand how CO2 molecules – or any other gaseous species – could selectively emit in only one direction. The bonds in the CO2 molecule absorb and release heat in all directions. As “greenhouse gases” accumulate in the atmosphere, heat generally takes longer to pass through the atmosphere into space (and thus the enthalpy of the earth’s fluids and land masses have an average net increase). The sun emits radiation in a vast range of the EM spectrum, including IR. But what hits the earth can change frequency from some other frequencies to IR.

You do realize, don’t you, just how much bullshyt was in that paragraph, don’t you?

WryTrvllr on January 5, 2014 at 8:46 PM

If the earth were a homogeneous object in its totality, and more heat were being absorbed into it than released, then I suppose that it wouldn’t make sense that there would be record cold temperatures last year at all.

wow. That didn’t take long.

WryTrvllr on January 5, 2014 at 8:49 PM

You do realize, don’t you, just how much bullshyt was in that paragraph, don’t you?

WryTrvllr on January 5, 2014 at 8:46 PM

It really wasn’t. That is not where the warmists’ reasoning goes wonky. They found they couldn’t juice up enough heating to worry about if they assumed the Earth’s climate wasn’t unstable, so they threw in model assumptions of feedback loops creating the warming necessary to scare us.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics ….. and then, worst of all, there are ‘models.’

fadetogray on January 5, 2014 at 8:55 PM

A new paper from SPPI and Christopher Monckton shows how the IPCC has quietly conceded defeat, that it’s models projecting catastrophic doom from anthropogenic global warming have been falsified in the face of real-world observations.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/game-over-ipcc-quietly-concedes-defeat.html

Murphy9 on January 5, 2014 at 9:51 PM

yet they fill the knowledge hole with faith in their model input.

Not faith. More of A Convenient Lie.

fadetogray on January 5, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Less ice, more ice, whatever. It’s global warming

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/less_ice_more_ice_whatever_its_global_warming/#121357

2007 – global warming means less ice around Antarctica:

Global warming is threatening one of the most endearing symbols of Antarctica – the penguin… The environmental conservation group WWF is warning that rising temperatures and the resulting loss of sea ice is robbing the emblematic birds of the nesting grounds they need to breed successfully.

2013: global warming means more ice around Antarctica:

GLOBAL warming has led to more ice in the sea around Antarctica and could help insulate the southern hemisphere from atmospheric warming…

Published online in Nature Geoscience, the article suggests cool freshwater from melt beneath the Antarctic ice shelves has insulated offshore sea ice from the warming ocean beneath.

Murphy9 on January 5, 2014 at 10:06 PM

http://m4gw.com/eleven-global-warming-stories-from-2013-you-probably-never-heard-of/

1. Antarctic Global Warming Expedition Ship Trapped in Sea Ice.

You may have heard about the Russian vessel trapped 100 miles away from land in 10 feet thick ice in Antarctica and how three ice breakers have failed to rescue it. What you may not have heard is this ship is filled with Climate Scientists studying Global Warming. They are comparing data from 100 years ago when there was no sea ice in the same location.

2. Yachts Trapped in Sea Ice in the Arctic Last Summer.

You probably didn’t hear about all the yachts, sailboats, rowboats, and kayaks that got trapped by sea ice while trying to sail the fabled Northwest Passage. They were promised an ice free passage.

3. Global Sea Ice at Record Levels.

Al Gore and John Kerry 5 years ago predicted that 2013 would be ice free in the arctic. You probably haven’t heard that the exact opposite came true. 2013 is currently at the second highest volume of sea ice ever recorded and will probably break the all time record before the season is over.

4. Half of Meteorologists Don’t Believe in Global Warming.

Nearly half of meteorologists and atmospheric science experts don’t believe that human activities are the driving force behind global warming, according to a survey by the American Meteorological Society.

5. Only 75 “Climate Scientists” Believe in Global Warming.

You probably have heard ad nauseum that 97% percent of “Climate Scientists” believe in global warming. That stat was based on a study which counted only 75 of 77 “Climate Scientists”. Compared to the over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Global Warming. That’s only 2.3 in 1,000 or .23% of scientists that actually believe in Global Warming.

6. NASA caught fudging historical temps to make it look like the globe is warming.

By massively cooling the past in their recent graphs, NASA has exaggerated the amount of warming they report by nearly twice as much as they did 13 years ago.

7. Polar Bar Population at Record Levels.

Since we’ve been keeping count the Polar Bear population is estimated at a record high of 20k to 25k. 5,000 are expected to be born around the New Year in Russia alone.

8. Obama Allows Wind Farms to Kill Eagles Without Penalties.

Over 50 years ago the green movement started with the book “Silent Spring” which alleged that DDT was killing the Bald Eagle. Now we have come full circle by allowing wind power companies to kill eagles without penalty because it’s “good for the planet”.

9. The Oceans Aren’t Rising.

Remember in 2009 when the officials of the Maldives held a press conference under water to show that their islands were sinking because of global warming. Well a new study done in 2013 shows that there is nothing to worry about.

10. 2013 Was The Least Extreme U.S. Weather Year Ever.

2013 shatters the record for fewest U.S. tornadoes, 15% lower than previous record. 2013 also had the fewest U.S. forest fires since 1984.

11. No Global Warming For Over 17 Years.

The RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies for November 1996 to October 2013 had shown no global warming for exactly 204 months – the first dataset to show the full 17 years without warming specified by Ben Santer as showing the models got it wrong.

Murphy9 on January 5, 2014 at 10:10 PM

Global warming means more snowstorms: scientists – “Heavy snowstorms are not inconsistent with a warming planet,” said scientist Jeff Masters, as part of a conference call with reporters and colleagues convened by the Union of Concern Scientists.

And…

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

http://www.progressivedisorder.com/Snowfall1.shtml

Murphy9 on January 5, 2014 at 10:14 PM

NYT article just full of garbage.

FORECASTING FOR THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Published: June 15, 1986

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/15/weekinreview/forecasting-for-the-greenhouse-effect.html

Murphy9 on January 5, 2014 at 10:16 PM

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/Klaas-Vaak/

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas because the atmo-sphere has no glass house. German physicists Gerhard Gerlich and
Ralf D Tscheuschner proved this in their classic paper, “Falsifica-tion of The Atmospheric CO
2
Greenhouse Effects Within The
Frame of Physics,” International Journal of Modern Physics B, v23,
n03, January 6, 2009, pp. 275-364. Free download at http://arxiv.
org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf.

Murphy9 on January 5, 2014 at 10:26 PM

OK. One last tidbit for anyone still interested in theis climate scam stuff.

Try this for a few cities. Go to weather.com. Type in your zip code. Click in the monthly tab and look carefully, REALLY carefully, at the graphic of average high, average low, low to date, and high to date. It’s in the lower left hand corner. If you type Bowling green KY real soon you will see 12 Faren at the same thermometer level as 26 Farenheit. They ONLY do this with the lows, and the error is ALWAYS in the same direction.

Why would they feel the need to do this?

Heidi Cullen.

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2014 at 4:23 AM

But, you bring no comment related to mine. And you bring little or no respect to anyone who has views that differ from your own. So, I have nothing else to say to you on this thread.

oakland on January 4, 2014 at 6:00 PM

In a nutshell, Ed Morrisey writes above your ability to comprehend and blink owned you in another discussion.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2014 at 6:53 PM

No, the radiation doesn’t change frequency.

Yes, Blink, radiation energy can re-radiate at different frequencies. Absorbed EM energy in one frequency range (such as visible light) can be radiated out in another (such as infrared).

oakland on January 6, 2014 at 9:58 PM

blink on January 6, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Unless models are 100% efficacious, they will never model “properly”.

You apparently misunderstood my comment. Please re-read what I was responding to. What I stated was correct. You can’t apply simple lump-capacitance to model the earth’s atmosphere, oceans and soil. My comment had nothing whatever to do with water vapor either.

oakland on January 6, 2014 at 10:02 PM

You obliviously think heat and IR are the same thing

Never said anything of the sort. Please read my comment carefully. Heat is the total of the molecular motion (as KE), and radiation is a means by which energy may be conveyed.

warming, and then reradiating omnidirectionally

warming as increasing the KE of the molecules that absorb the IR; then releasing by kinetic transfer to other molecules (in all directions, as I said); the important matter being, as in a greenhouse, slowing the movement of heat back to the outside of the system; carbon dioxide, by virtue of its double bond structure, is particularly adept at absorbing IR, and is therefore absolutely a greenhouse gas, and, by virtue of its increasing content in the atmosphere, provides for the retaining of heat energy for a longer time before releasing to space (thus, the global warming effect); It doesn’t matter that carbon dioxide is not as strong as water vapour at absorbing IR, it only has to be significant to explain the significant warming that is occurring now

oakland on January 6, 2014 at 10:13 PM

A greenhouse doesn’t block IR – it prevents convection of the inside warm air with the outside air.

A greenhouse, of course, doesn’t block IR. I never said it did. And I said that the analogy to a greenhouse was a “coarse one” because the same methods of heat transfer in a greenhouse don’t apply in totality to that of the atmosphere. But the important thing is that radiant energy passes through the glass (also blocking other frequencies such as UV), and warms surfaces and gases within the enclosure (else, why would those surfaces heat up?). The result is that the atmosphere warms due to radiant energy being absorbed by certain gases and other substances, and reduces the speed of heat transfer out (as a greenhouse also slows the rate of heat out of the enclosure).

oakland on January 6, 2014 at 10:25 PM

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas because the atmo-sphere has no glass house. German physicists Gerhard Gerlich and
Ralf D Tscheuschner proved this in their classic paper, “Falsifica-tion of The Atmospheric CO
2
Greenhouse Effects Within The
Frame of Physics,” International Journal of Modern Physics B, v23,
n03, January 6, 2009, pp. 275-364. Free download at http://arxiv.
org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf.

Murphy9 on January 5, 2014 at 10:26 PM

Murphy9 on January 6, 2014 at 10:36 PM

A greenhouse, of course, doesn’t block IR. I never said it did. And I said that the analogy to a greenhouse was a “coarse one” because the same methods of heat transfer in a greenhouse don’t apply in totality to that of the atmosphere. But the important thing is that radiant energy passes through the glass (also blocking other frequencies such as UV), and warms surfaces and gases within the enclosure (else, why would those surfaces heat up?). The result is that the atmosphere warms due to radiant energy being absorbed by certain gases and other substances, and reduces the speed of heat transfer out (as a greenhouse also slows the rate of heat out of the enclosure).

oakland on January 6, 2014 at 10:25 PM

Ok Oakland. One more time. Wrong. A plate of glass blocks some IR and some visible light both ways. (every change out a window?) (or hold a flat piece of glass parallel to the groung?) It will be darker beneath. A true greenhouse works because the sunlight and IR that do make it through the glass heat the objects inside, which then heat up the air around them. The glass enclosure prevents a convective current from carrying this heat away.

Why do eagles and gliders soar?

The Earth NEVER emits as much visible or IR energy as the sun does, which make it impossible for a molecule tumbling in the atmosphere in random motion to reflect more energy back towards the earth than that said same molecule would reflect out into space in the first place.

Need another example? Cloudy nights are warmer than crystal clear ones, but cloudy days are far colder than sunny ones. Average temperature for a week of cloudy days and cloudy nights…..colder.

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2014 at 12:00 AM

The result is that the atmosphere warms due to radiant energy being absorbed by certain gases and other substances, and reduces the speed of heat transfer out (as a greenhouse also slows the rate of heat out of the enclosure).

oakland on January 6, 2014 at 10:25 PM

Ever notice how the glare off other people’s windshields makes it tough to see sometimes?

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2014 at 12:04 AM

In the future, you won’t be wrong if you remember to use the term energy in there.

blink on January 6, 2014 at 11:51 PM

What does this have to do with my comments that I gave in reply to the gentleman?

Is it not understood that radiation (IR, UV, X-ray, etc) are manifestations of energy?

oakland on January 7, 2014 at 6:10 AM

I’ll address the errors when I get a chance, in the meantime I’m hoping oakland explains how a force can absorb energy. The bonds of a CO2 molecule are just forces.

blink on January 5, 2014 at 9:46 PM

Then explain to me how ER is absorbed into matter, to manifest as heat energy.

Can you give me a definition of heat energy?

oakland on January 7, 2014 at 6:15 AM

Additionally, there’s much less CO2 in the atmosphere than water vapor. In fact, the amount of “extra” warming due to CO2 is probably a rounding error

Do you have a reference for that?

And, yes, water vapor is a very significant greenhouse gas. Are you saying that water vapor is responsible for the significant degree of warming that has occurred in the last few decades and carbon dioxide is insignificant?

If so, you are at odds with most of what scientists are generally telling us.

And what would prompt the sudden loading of the atmosphere with water vapor in the last fifty years?

But I’m fairly sure that she gets it now. All this background will help explain the problems with CAGW (a term which she still claims she doesn’t understand).

blink on January 7, 2014 at 1:59 AM

I don’t “understand” it because you haven’t made it understandable to me. I am not familiar with what meaning you convey by use of this acronym.

oakland on January 7, 2014 at 6:21 AM

Notice that water vapor is much more “adept at absorbing” IR radiation from earth. It’s not even close.

You’re attempting to split hairs. You want to make a relevancy into an absolute.

I was in no way comparing carbon dioxide with water vapor. But rather I was comparing carbon dioxide in a relative sense with other atmospheric gases and vapors (of which water is only one).

Yes, carbon dioxide is rather adept…..that’s why it is relevant to at least some the mechanisms that work to increase the heat content of the planet’s fluids and land masses.

oakland on January 7, 2014 at 6:25 AM

You’re attempting to split hairs. You want to make a relevancy into an absolute.

correction: relativism – not “relevancy”

Basically you are discounting the effect of carbon dioxide – a known greenhouse gas (by virtue of absorption of specific frequencies of ER. I want to know why you think that carbon dioxide is of no significance.

oakland on January 7, 2014 at 6:32 AM

1. This is completely irrelevant to the point I made, and a useless counterargument.

2. Models can most certainly be “proper” without being 100% efficacious. Many of our current weather models are quite obvious “proper” despite not being 100% efficacious

Models, as far back as 40 years ago, then, have proven to be efficacious. And they use many of the methods that are used by models at predicting weather. There has (and continues to be) warming as predicted (and so far, generally on the low end of the predicted ranges).

oakland on January 7, 2014 at 6:37 AM

Sure it did. Water vapor and its feedback mechanism are a result of the earth not being a heterogeneous body.

blink on January 7, 2014 at 12:08 AM

My comment was directed at the gentleman’s claim that the recent cold in the US was some measure of proof that the planet’s average temperatures over time were not increasing. You need to understand the context of the exchange. I was not referring to water vapor, but rather to the statement that the gentleman made.

oakland on January 7, 2014 at 6:40 AM

At least you admit it.

oakland on January 4, 2014 at 6:10 PM

You should try admitting it, too. It will probably be liberating for you

I’ve never claimed expertise in the subject.

What about you? Do you claim expertise?

oakland on January 7, 2014 at 6:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3