|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 20, 2014 12:58:47 GMT
The pause continues, and scientists are actually starting to look at the real causes of climate disruption/variation/warming/cooling/raining/drought/night/day etc.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 20, 2014 16:49:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Aug 20, 2014 17:05:25 GMT
The words "top down solar modulation" are getting increasingly popular...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 20, 2014 17:48:42 GMT
The words "top down solar modulation" are getting increasingly popular... Yes, they seem to be. The scientific literature is blooming with actual................finally............credible information again. I am so thankful for the pause!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 20, 2014 21:46:45 GMT
Was the usual reference to man's influence on recent climate NOT mentioned in the Lund research?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 21, 2014 0:36:30 GMT
Ratty: We do change the climate, but not in a significant way.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Aug 21, 2014 7:07:19 GMT
Ratty: We do change the climate, but not in a significant way. Sigurdur: Locally, I strongly agree with you, but globally... we are just a feather on a pond.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 21, 2014 16:35:30 GMT
code: CO2 has to have a minor effect on climate. That is raw physics.
The effect of man's behavior is much more pronounced on a regional scale.
Look at California, this is a poster child. A lot of water has been brought to a desert area. Humidity is higher than in the past because of all the "forced" green.
On a global scale? The effect is not significant. Even in regards to mountain ranges it isn't significant. IMHO
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 22, 2014 3:46:12 GMT
Look at California, this is a poster child. A lot of water has been brought to a desert area. Humidity is higher than in the past because of all the "forced" green. where did you get that?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 22, 2014 6:40:12 GMT
Look at California, this is a poster child. A lot of water has been brought to a desert area. Humidity is higher than in the past because of all the "forced" green. where did you get that? The higher humidity?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 22, 2014 8:12:13 GMT
yes . . . .and in particular its cause.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 22, 2014 12:59:33 GMT
yes . . . .and in particular its cause. Dr Spencer. He wrote a paper about regional climate a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 22, 2014 21:08:21 GMT
yes . . . .and in particular its cause. Dr Spencer. He wrote a paper about regional climate a few years ago. do you have a link to it?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 23, 2014 0:49:07 GMT
Dr Spencer. He wrote a paper about regional climate a few years ago. do you have a link to it? Not handy as I didn't save the url. I will look for it in the near future tho. Remind me if I forget to do so.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 23, 2014 5:37:43 GMT
do you have a link to it? Not handy as I didn't save the url. I will look for it in the near future tho. Remind me if I forget to do so. Well Dr Spencer is almost certainly wrong. He might be able to advance his argument for Arizona or some of the other southwestern states, but it doesn't make a lot of sense in the case of California, unless "recent" is defined as anything beyond the middle of the 19th century and even then it would be tough to make a case that adequate humidity records exist from the early 19th century to make the humidity claim. California beginning in the mid 19th century began an amibitious program of agricultural development. Most water rights were established in the 19th century. In the early 20th century it came to a head and 7 states wrangled over the rights to the water of the Colorado river. In the 1920's the matter was settled, however, California was using and continued to use water in excess of the settlement, mostly on the basis of the other states not using their share. So since the mid 20th century what has been happening in California is in fact a diminishing use of that water, a situation that the state adapted to by converting to less water demanding crops, better technology, and partially compensating by moving water from northern California. A growing population has exerted additional pressure on this for the entire 2nd half of the 20th century. Increasing inputs from northern California has been for the purpose of supporting a larger population in southern California, not new irrigation of the desert. Now Arizona has been increasing irrigation of the desert using the allotments of water they previously allowed California to use while maintaining their claim through the 7 state compact of 1922. Now indeed if you irrigate some desert (which California did most of what it was going to do over a 100 years ago) you will increase the "local" humidity. But it mostly comes as a tradeoff. A large portion of the Colorado river now only runs underground. In central California the 2nd largest lake completely within the United States, Tulare Lake, completely disappeared. Owens Lake a huge saline lake in the upper desert originally accepting and trapping water (except for floods that sent the water to lower elevation dry lakes) from the entire Eastern Sierra is now mostly a dry lake itself. Water diverted to graywater and black water residential use is mostly dumped into the ocean, and the need for more economy in the use of water in California has led to different crops and better irrigation technology to specifically reduce the amount of water lost to evaporation. this is the real story of the last 100 years here in California, most likely, if anything, leading to less humidity.
|
|