|
Post by ron on Jan 31, 2009 9:17:54 GMT
The [...] outer layers of the atmosphere where the MASSIVE amount of oxygen in our atmosphere gobble up 100% of this UV. yes...100% The atmosphere absorbs 100% of UV? So I don't need sunscreen anymore!?!?!!! Woo hoo! [glow=red,2,300]I am so happy[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Jan 31, 2009 11:56:53 GMT
The arctic ice is sea ice. What I was referring to here is the ice-albedo feedback and the polar amplification effect. Sea ice reflects about 90% of the sunlight that strikes it. Open ocean reflects less than 10%. That extra energy is absorbed, then released in fall when the ice reforms. See the last two Octobers for an example of this effect. Now imagine a much larger area of the Arctic Ocean being open water for a longer period. That's a lot more heat being released into the atmosphere. And the Greenland ice sheet is in the area where that heat is being released. A I'm really surprised that know one called you on this.... It is well understood the Arctic Ocean reflectivity Is higher if the water is exposed. The albedo is close to 98 due to the Suns angle in the sky. So it seems the arctic has a powerful negative feed back.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jan 31, 2009 12:02:24 GMT
kenfeldman writes "I tried looking for the October 2006 paper on Google Scholar and couldn't find it. What journal was it published in?
The IPCC report executive summary was published in February 2007 and they probably had a cut off of early 2006 for papers to be considered.
The reasons for not giveing Svensmark's ideas more weight were fully disclosed in the section you chose to cut off. Here is the full text of that paragraph:"
I am fully aware of all that is in AR4 chapter 2.7. You are missing the point I am trying to make. The IPCC gives a very biased discussion of Svensmark's theory. The paragraph you quote gives only one side of the discussion. If they are behaving as advocates, this is completely acceptable. However, if they are behaving as analysts, then they have a responsibility to also include aspects of the debate that favor the Svensmark theory. By deliberately excluding the Svensmark paper in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, they are not behaving as scientists. There is no need for any cut off date. Do you really believe that if something occurred that showed AGW in a favorable light, at the last minute, it would have been EXCLUDED? In any event, AR4 was not published until May 2007. The fact of the matter is that chapter 2.7 is a snow job. It is a magnificent PR publication, and is exactly what one expects of people who are trying to convince a jury that they are correct. But by no stretch of the imagination has it got anything to do with science. And this is my complaint. It is not only on this issue that Chapter 2.7 cherry picks the information. It is a completely biased part of AR4. In fact the whole of AR4 is biased, but that is another issue. The omission of Svensmark et al Proc. Roy. Soc. A October 2006 is a massive indictment of the claim by the IPCC that they are a scientific organization. The IPCC is an advocate organization.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jan 31, 2009 14:21:52 GMT
Let me continue with my thoughts, having had a little more time to think. When Friis-Christensen and Svensmark postulated the idea that cosmic rays affected world climate, the head of the Workd Meteorological Organization told them they were being subversive. How anyone can be subversive in a scientific discussion , I have no idea. But the Svensmark theory put the IPCC in a difficult position. In the usual way science is done, if I have a pet theory, what I must do is present all sides of the discussion, and then explain why I feel my idea is probably right. With respect to cosmic rays, the IPCC cannot afford to do this. If they acknowledge that there is some good basic science to the Svensmark theory, then they undermine their assertion that only increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can explain what is going on. So when it came to AR4 Chapter 2.7 they were in great difficulties. They cannot afford to give any credence to the Svensmark theory, which should be mandatory in a scientific discussion. So they put up Svensmark and Marsh as a straw man, and then tried to demolish it. Whether they succeeded could be the subject for discussion. But when Svensmark et al got into print with Proc. Roy. Soc. they really had a problem. Scientifically, they should be obliged to include it in the discussion. This they could not afford to do. What they chose to do was to ignore the publication. This is completely and utterly unscientific. And that is the point I am trying to make.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 31, 2009 17:34:47 GMT
The [...] outer layers of the atmosphere where the MASSIVE amount of oxygen in our atmosphere gobble up 100% of this UV. yes...100% The atmosphere absorbs 100% of UV? So I don't need sunscreen anymore!?!?!!! Woo hoo! [glow=red,2,300]I am so happy[/glow] notice I said "this UV", implying it was a specific subset of the UV. No sunscreens are tested or required to absorb, I think it's above 280nm. None of it hits the ground.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 1, 2009 1:54:39 GMT
Aha! Thanks for the clarification. The atmosphere absorbs 100% of UV? So I don't need sunscreen anymore!?!?!!! Woo hoo! [glow=red,2,300]I am so happy[/glow] notice I said "this UV", implying it was a specific subset of the UV. No sunscreens are tested or required to absorb, I think it's above 280nm. None of it hits the ground.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Feb 1, 2009 2:36:45 GMT
poitsplace: Actually the UV levels have dropped by about 50%. Soft and hard X-rays up to a factor of 1/10,000.
Ken:
Isn't water vapor a greenhouse gas?
Combustion of gasoline: C8H18 + 12.5 O2 --> 8 CO2 + 9 H2O (Yes, with incomplete combustion and other additives, the resultants are more complex.)
So you get 9 parts water and 8 parts CO2. Now add all the evaporation from irrigation, water use in heat exchangers and so on, you can easily see that people are adding more water to the atmosphere than CO2.
What about heat radiated from chemical and mechanical processes.
Now, what about that failure of the AGW models to predict the current cooling trend?
|
|
|
Post by wanders on Feb 1, 2009 3:14:50 GMT
I was required to take a science class with a lab to finish my degree. (I’m not a doctorate as many of the contributors to this site are.) I chose Meteorology . I was completely consumed by the science and the complexity. I WAS HOOKED. Climate, weather and now with your help solar weather are my “hobbies” so to speak. I have been lurking for months. I thought that I should shout my encouragement for this on line debate and let you all know how much I hate you all for making me read so much (LOL). In my REAL job, I’m an Investigator. I have been doing it for quite a while. I’ve learned to trust nothing and confirm everything . I am impressed with most of the information and the citations. I am sure there are thousands that watch quietly as I was. Keep it up! And Socold, don’t ever go away. You really keep me on my toes. Thanks Kevin! NOW back to lurking!
|
|
|
Post by Col 'NDX on Feb 1, 2009 23:59:45 GMT
So, still being a skeptic, I read this sig from elsewhere:
1. Is the science beyond dispute? 2. Delay in what? 3. Denial of AGW?
Only a madman would have such thoughts.
If the science is "beyond dispute", I'd like to see proper, peer reviewed proof.
Failing that, points 2 and 3 should be further explained too.
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 2, 2009 1:50:22 GMT
So, still being a skeptic, I read this sig from elsewhere: 1. Is the science beyond dispute? 2. Delay in what? 3. Denial of AGW? Only a madman would have such thoughts. If the science is "beyond dispute", I'd like to see proper, peer reviewed proof. Failing that, points 2 and 3 should be further explained too. This might interest you, wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#more-5392Puts the C02 drives temp arguement to bed, and without that the whole thing falls apart i beleive.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 2, 2009 14:51:12 GMT
I have been suggesting that the IPCC is a political, not a scientific organization. Anyone who doubts this should read economictimes.indiatimes.com/Developmental_Issues/Strict_emission_for_developed_world_likely_Pachauri/articleshow/4059015.cmswhere Dr Pauchauri is quoted as saying ""Of course, the developing countries will be exempted from any such restrictions but the developed countries will certainly have to cut down on emission," Pachauri said, adding, "some strict regulations are going to be there."" Note Dr. Pachauri comes from India, and India is one of the nations which, he claims, should be exempt form binding emission targets. If this isn't playing politics, I dont know what is.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 2, 2009 17:14:25 GMT
Col,
The sig. seems to have come from this speech by Obama:
I could quite happily pick it to pieces as well as anyone here. But it's a political speech, not a scientific speech, so there's probably not much point.
Jim,
Is the IPCC a political organisation? The clue is in the name "Inter-governmental Panel...". Yes it's a political organisation, and it's trying its best to show that it is guided by the best available science. Naturally, I think it's done a pretty good job of the science (at least for Working Group 1, I've not studied the other reports much).
In the end, though, the whole idea is to try and come up with an acceptable global solution for a tricky problem, and that's a political issue. Here, certain developed and developing nation states have done a good job in watering down the impact of the report by maximising the level of doubt and uncertainty in the Summaries for Policy Makers.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 2, 2009 17:37:30 GMT
steve writes "Jim,
Is the IPCC a political organisation? The clue is in the name "Inter-governmental Panel...". Yes it's a political organisation, and it's trying its best to show that it is guided by the best available science. Naturally, I think it's done a pretty good job of the science (at least for Working Group 1, I've not studied the other reports much)."
Here, I strongly disagree with you. I see no sign at all that the IPCC tries to write anything that is scientific. Everything the IPCC writes is political. This is my major complaint about the IPCC. It is an advocate institution, masquerading as a scientific one. It has done an excellent job of convincing a gullible world that the "science" it has presented is valid. I have nothing but admiration for the work the IPCC has done to foster it's political agenda. But it has potentially caused immeasurable damage to real science.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 2, 2009 22:32:47 GMT
poitsplace: Actually the UV levels have dropped by about 50%. Soft and hard X-rays up to a factor of 1/10,000. Ken: Isn't water vapor a greenhouse gas? Combustion of gasoline: C8H18 + 12.5 O2 --> 8 CO2 + 9 H2O (Yes, with incomplete combustion and other additives, the resultants are more complex.) So you get 9 parts water and 8 parts CO2. Now add all the evaporation from irrigation, water use in heat exchangers and so on, you can easily see that people are adding more water to the atmosphere than CO2. What about heat radiated from chemical and mechanical processes. Now, what about that failure of the AGW models to predict the current cooling trend? This is what brought me here in the first place. Google ["Cubic Kilometers" "Fossil water" Irrigation] You will see the HUGE amount of extra water vapor being put into the atmosphere by irrigation - and by definition all the irrigation is in ARID areas. So there is suddenly water vapor where once there was not and it makes the arid areas warmer especially at night. And of course HYDRO-carbons when burnt are turned into H 2O and CO 2. Water vapor provides far more radiative forcing than carbon dioxide AND even the AGW proponents know this as without it their AGW hypothesis is falisified. But the IPCC only includes it in AR4 as a _feedback_
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 3, 2009 0:26:43 GMT
Col, The sig. seems to have come from this speech by Obama: I could quite happily pick it to pieces as well as anyone here. But it's a political speech, not a scientific speech, so there's probably not much point. Jim, Is the IPCC a political organisation? The clue is in the name "Inter-governmental Panel...". Yes it's a political organisation, and it's trying its best to show that it is guided by the best available science. Naturally, I think it's done a pretty good job of the science (at least for Working Group 1, I've not studied the other reports much). In the end, though, the whole idea is to try and come up with an acceptable global solution for a tricky problem, and that's a political issue. Here, certain developed and developing nation states have done a good job in watering down the impact of the report by maximising the level of doubt and uncertainty in the Summaries for Policy Makers. Steve, Go to www.ipccfacts.org/history.html<SNIP> "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations Organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to assess “ the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” Review by experts and governments is an essential part of the IPCC process. For its first task, the IPCC was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies." <SNIP> My highlight but their quotes. It would appear that the IPCC had already made up its mind on ' the risk of human-induced climate change'. They were not tasked to see if there was AGW they were tasked to highlight the risks of AGW. They were operating under a foregone conclusion in 1988, As you say a political organization - this is the argument we need to make, find something to support it.
|
|