|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 3, 2009 0:45:24 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_ I'm wondering where you get that impression? Are you quoting someone? Have you actually delved into AR4? (I don't say 'read' because that's asking way too much. The damned thing is a high-level kloodge and about as much fun as a root canal.) Page 182: "2.5.6 Tropospheric Water Vapour from Anthropogenic Sources Anthropogenic use of water is less than 1% of natural sources of water vapour and about 70% of the use of water for human activity is from irrigation (Döll, 2002). Several regional studies have indicated an impact of irrigation on temperature, humidity and precipitation...yatta-yatta²..." The feedbacks section doesn't start until about Page 479. The Earth's surface is 70% water, and the air over the ocean has 100% relative humidity. Over land, water from irrigation mixes with colder air and any excess water eventually drops out as rain. Wet (humid) air rises, radiates heat to space, and again the water comes out as rain. As the fabulous IPCC says, irrigation causes only about 1% of the H²O in the atmosphere. They might lie to you, but I won't.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 3, 2009 0:46:46 GMT
Interesting discussion here, I almost haven't got anything to add. Well, maybe something. The IPCC should never have let government review into their report. This almost defines the report as being political. However, I do not think the document is strongly politically biased. They might have given an improved discussion of other contributions to the global climate which might explain the global temperature rise, but many are extremely uncertain or unexplained.
I've read and studied the complete IPCC report, and I must agree that it is terribly boring sometimes. Still you should study it if you really want to understand what it's about. It struck me that they are quite honest about all uncertainties concerning their theory. Numerous forcings and feedbacks are explained. Some parts could be a bit biased towards their theory, but usually in later chapters a more complete description has been given. This even includes vulcanic effects, solar effects, various circulations, aerosols, cosmic rays etc.
As for the Cosmic rays and clouds documents, I can say I've read most of the articles on this topic. I've expressed my views about this before. It might contribute, but very likely not enough. During grand solar minima this relation combined with decreased TSI and maybe some unexplained mechanisms might have some influence, as there is evidence that makes this statement possible.
Many wild theories can be found on the internet, on the different websites many AGW denialists quote, but many of then do not have good explanations or data. I've studied most of the theories (but I must admit not all of them) and they were either based on incorrect science, wrong assumptions, (deliberate) mathematical errors and statistical analysis. This is a pity, it would be great if someone would come up with a very convincing theory and proof that AGW is not important. I really doubt this will ever happen though, and if it happens it is likely due to an overestimation of the AGW effect together with cancelling from some unknown or currently badly understood feedback mechanism. As we learn more about the sun (or even space)-earth interaction, maybe we'll find some mechanism which does have a strong short term influence on the earth's climate. I hope so, because I like to go ice skating here, and, though I believe it is better to find more environmentally friendly energy sources than coal and oil, I don't like to see the AGW climate projections come true. (Although I prefer that over an ice age, but I do not believe an ice age will come soon.)
So, to turn the question around, show me a theory which proves AGW is wrong.
(like CO2 is not antropogenic, CO2 does not absorb enough energy to make a difference, a strong negative feedback which cancels the heating distribution of CO2, the climate is insensitive to CO2 forcing, etc)
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 3, 2009 1:17:39 GMT
Interesting discussion here, I almost haven't got anything to add. Well, maybe something. The IPCC should never have let government review into their report. This almost defines the report as being political. However, I do not think the document is strongly politically biased. They might have given an improved discussion of other contributions to the global climate which might explain the global temperature rise, but many are extremely uncertain or unexplained. I've read and studied the complete IPCC report, and I must agree that it is terribly boring sometimes. Still you should study it if you really want to understand what it's about. It struck me that they are quite honest about all uncertainties concerning their theory. Numerous forcings and feedbacks are explained. Some parts could be a bit biased towards their theory, but usually in later chapters a more complete description has been given. This even includes vulcanic effects, solar effects, various circulations, aerosols, cosmic rays etc. As for the Cosmic rays and clouds documents, I can say I've read most of the articles on this topic. I've expressed my views about this before. It might contribute, but very likely not enough. During grand solar minima this relation combined with decreased TSI and maybe some unexplained mechanisms might have some influence, as there is evidence that makes this statement possible. Many wild theories can be found on the internet, on the different websites many AGW denialists quote, but many of then do not have good explanations or data. I've studied most of the theories (but I must admit not all of them) and they were either based on incorrect science, wrong assumptions, (deliberate) mathematical errors and statistical analysis. This is a pity, it would be great if someone would come up with a very convincing theory and proof that AGW is not important. I really doubt this will ever happen though, and if it happens it is likely due to an overestimation of the AGW effect together with cancelling from some unknown or currently badly understood feedback mechanism. As we learn more about the sun (or even space)-earth interaction, maybe we'll find some mechanism which does have a strong short term influence on the earth's climate. I hope so, because I like to go ice skating here, and, though I believe it is better to find more environmentally friendly energy sources than coal and oil, I don't like to see the AGW climate projections come true. (Although I prefer that over an ice age, but I do not believe an ice age will come soon.) So, to turn the question around, show me a theory which proves AGW is wrong. (like CO2 is not antropogenic, CO2 does not absorb enough energy to make a difference, a strong negative feedback which cancels the heating distribution of CO2, the climate is insensitive to CO2 forcing, etc) First of all the onus of proof is on those making the claim C02 will destroy the planet and all life it supports, but for the sake of the arguement i will indulge you. Here is a link for you to look at: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#more-5392I would like you to answer a question for me, if C02 trails temp by 800 years then with C02 at say 300ppm why did the C02 induced global warming FAIL to continue to spiral out of control in the past? What is so different from the past temp and C02 levels from today's levels?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 3, 2009 1:49:23 GMT
aj1983 writes "It struck me that they are quite honest about all uncertainties concerning their theory." Correction. AGW is not a theory; it is a hypothesis. The normal progression in science is; a hypothesis is an idea for which there is little or no experimental data; a theory is an idea that has some experimental data; a law is an idea that has overwhelming experimental data. Also written "So, to turn the question around, show me a theory which proves AGW is wrong." This is a tough one. The main problem is that, so far as I can tell from my limited understanding, no-one really knows the precise physics as to how greenhouse gases keep the atmosphere warm. It is an extremely complicated subject. There are a number of people on Yahoo's Climate Skeptics who are trying to describe the detailed physics of the problem. Should they succeed, I have no doubt they can prove that AGW is wrong. But until they can, then we just have to wait until the data shows that the world is cooling, which none of the AGW models predict at all. Now that the world is in an economic crisis, it is unlikely that governments are going to waste any money on AGW, so we may have a few years for the data to come. I am in two minds about this; I would like to see the house of cards that is AGW come crashing to the ground; but I fear that Livingston and Penn are right and we are heading for a new Maunder type solar minimum and a new LIA.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 3, 2009 3:26:46 GMT
Interesting discussion here, I almost haven't got anything to add. Well, maybe something. The IPCC should never have let government review into their report. This almost defines the report as being political. However, I do not think the document is strongly politically biased. They might have given an improved discussion of other contributions to the global climate which might explain the global temperature rise, but many are extremely uncertain or unexplained. I've read and studied the complete IPCC report, and I must agree that it is terribly boring sometimes. Still you should study it if you really want to understand what it's about. It struck me that they are quite honest about all uncertainties concerning their theory. Numerous forcings and feedbacks are explained. Some parts could be a bit biased towards their theory, but usually in later chapters a more complete description has been given. This even includes vulcanic effects, solar effects, various circulations, aerosols, cosmic rays etc. As for the Cosmic rays and clouds documents, I can say I've read most of the articles on this topic. I've expressed my views about this before. It might contribute, but very likely not enough. During grand solar minima this relation combined with decreased TSI and maybe some unexplained mechanisms might have some influence, as there is evidence that makes this statement possible. Many wild theories can be found on the internet, on the different websites many AGW denialists quote, but many of then do not have good explanations or data. I've studied most of the theories (but I must admit not all of them) and they were either based on incorrect science, wrong assumptions, (deliberate) mathematical errors and statistical analysis. This is a pity, it would be great if someone would come up with a very convincing theory and proof that AGW is not important. I really doubt this will ever happen though, and if it happens it is likely due to an overestimation of the AGW effect together with cancelling from some unknown or currently badly understood feedback mechanism. As we learn more about the sun (or even space)-earth interaction, maybe we'll find some mechanism which does have a strong short term influence on the earth's climate. I hope so, because I like to go ice skating here, and, though I believe it is better to find more environmentally friendly energy sources than coal and oil, I don't like to see the AGW climate projections come true. (Although I prefer that over an ice age, but I do not believe an ice age will come soon.) So, to turn the question around, show me a theory which proves AGW is wrong. (like CO2 is not antropogenic, CO2 does not absorb enough energy to make a difference, a strong negative feedback which cancels the heating distribution of CO2, the climate is insensitive to CO2 forcing, etc) Sorry if this appears combative, but would you please be more specific? I very much dislike generalization statements because it leaves a hole big enough for a 747 to taxi through. P.S. Have you read this? www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 3, 2009 6:46:03 GMT
So, to turn the question around, show me a theory which proves AGW is wrong. (like CO2 is not antropogenic, CO2 does not absorb enough energy to make a difference, a strong negative feedback which cancels the heating distribution of CO2, the climate is insensitive to CO2 forcing, etc) Let's put this in perspective. There is some reason to think that perhaps the world could warm a grand total as a result of AGW...about 1.5C by 2100. That's not 1.5C more than now, that's 1.5C total increase from added CO2. This assumes no positive or negative feedbacks. There is no reason to assume any more than this because we simply do not understand the climate well enough. For all the alarmism we are destined to deal with at least 1C of this warming. All the crazy schemes proposed would at most save us from .5C of this warming. ALL of the alarmist claims of extreme weather events are TOTALLY UNFOUNDED. Breaking some record temperature bys 1C, while noteworthy...isn't really a big deal in the grand scheme of things. The assertion that there will be more hurricanes is shown to be a load of crap by the actual records. The assumption that there will be more storms in general is silly because the main driving force of the weather systems...temperature variations...is actually decreased by global warming because the poles (supposedly) warm more than the tropics. This is all VERY well established science. The droughts and floods are the result of ocean currents. We can see this reflected in the records. Notice how they talk about the dustbowl of the 30's when they talk about global warming? The ocean currents were in the same configuration then. We find evidence of these cyclic (ie, they've happened over and over) fluctuations all over the world and stretching back thousands of years. "Oh my god it's hot" sounds like a great reason to THINK water might evaporate but you have to remember, water vapor in the atmosphere goes up exponentially. It rains like crazy in the tropics (with some notable exceptions...like africa, which has been getting drier for thousands of years). The higher the temperature goes, the more water moves around. The only way that would stop is if a significant amount of the oceans evaporated (which would mean the atmosphere would be about 90% water vapor) So anyway for starters, are you saying you think we should spend an estimated $30 trillion or more so we only hit 1C higher instead of 1.5C higher? Are you saying that 1.5C would be anything more than a bit of a nuisance? Would 1.5C total even count as significant global warming to you? (given the fact that there were many warmer periods in this interglacial and previous ones)
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Feb 3, 2009 7:32:13 GMT
droughts in Africa and ocean currents - very interesting - some time ago I happened upon some extraordinary materials which explained (in theory) how the Atlantic ocean warmed consequent to the Panama Isthmus closing - thus replacing heavy growth and jungle in Africa with savvanah - which gave an advantage to those homo erecti and habilus types who learned to stand erect for defense and hunting purposes - and incidentally, narrowed our hips thus causing difficulty in child birth - so if it weren't for warming, there wouldn't be an "us"
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 3, 2009 10:51:32 GMT
For the record, the main body of the IPCC report (all 1000 or so pages for WG1 which concerns itself with the physical basis) is authored by scientists with a background of peer reviewed publications, and reviewed mostly by scientists but also by self-nominated "expert reviewers" whose comments are supposed to be supported by peer-reviewed science for them to be incorporated.
If reporting the scientific support for the potential of severe impacts due to human-induced climate change is advocacy, then so be it.
The Summary For Policy Makers is where the scientists and politicians get together and thrash out a summary interpretatation of the main report.
PS. as someone who occasionally has to go on very boring Health and Safety Courses run by super-cautious people with first hand knowledge of cases of death caused by inappropriate use of an office stapler, "Risk" as used in the IPCC terms of reference has a technical meaning which really means "potential risk".
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 3, 2009 11:36:30 GMT
For the record, the main body of the IPCC report (all 1000 or so pages for WG1 which concerns itself with the physical basis) is authored by scientists with a background of peer reviewed publications, and reviewed mostly by scientists but also by self-nominated "expert reviewers" whose comments are supposed to be supported by peer-reviewed science for them to be incorporated. If reporting the scientific support for the potential of severe impacts due to human-induced climate change is advocacy, then so be it. The Summary For Policy Makers is where the scientists and politicians get together and thrash out a summary interpretatation of the main report. PS. as someone who occasionally has to go on very boring Health and Safety Courses run by super-cautious people with first hand knowledge of cases of death caused by inappropriate use of an office stapler, "Risk" as used in the IPCC terms of reference has a technical meaning which really means "potential risk". The idea that there are not hundreds of papers, by eminent scientists, disputing AGW is inaccurate. That said, the peer-review process has been largely hijacked by a group of people who, knowingly or not, have come to represent socialist, the-West-is-bad values. Pachauri is an important figure within the movement, arguing as he does that the West must curb emissions now and that his own country of India should continue developing unimpeded. Warming has theoretical risks that will never be proven. Cooling has real risks that have been proven again and again.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 3, 2009 11:56:51 GMT
steve writes "If reporting the scientific support for the potential of severe impacts due to human-induced climate change is advocacy, then so be it." If you really believe this, then I for one will find it impossible to discuss proper science with you. Science and advocacy simply cannot co-exist. At least, not what I understand science is.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 3, 2009 12:32:11 GMT
crakar24: CO2 destroying the planet and life is media bullshit. Like I said before all extreme changes are very unlikely to happen. And what is extreme? If sea level rises 7 m in 2000 years mankind will survive that. People will likely have to move, which will probably result in wars, but wars are likely even without that. Some places crops might not grow anymore (likely something else though), but at many other places crops might grow better. One of the biggest threats is the acidification of the ocean, which will and has already happen(ed) even if you think AGW is not true. I've had many discussions with scientists who have looked upon the raw data first hand. The lag is not very clear, but recent research has increased confidence in the lag somewhat. Ice ages are triggered (forced) by several mechanisms: 1) orbital changes (milankovic) 2) Ice sheet-flexibility of the earth's crust: inertia of the large ice sheets 3) CO2 feedback 4) albedo feedback If you look at orbital changes alone you will find that not all minima (insolation) trigger ice ages. Strong minima might trigger ice ages, some do not. Weaker minima sometimes do trigger ice ages. More recently it was discovered that the inertia of the large ice sheets is likely just as important as the milankovic cycles. This is a balance between the weight of the ice pushing the earth's surface down and the upward force of the earth's crust ("buoyancy"). Also CO2 and the albedo feedback are needed to create an ice age. With these forcings and feedbacks you can explain (and model) quite well how an ice age forms and the "rapid" temperature increase after an ice age. You can't get this profile without CO2 as a strong feedback. What's different this time? Roughly: This time WE are adding CO2, so now we are amplifying this feedback, with a greater temperature response. CO2 is a feedback, which responses to other forcings (or act as a forcing itself if put into the atmosphere by vulcanic activity or humans), but there are other feedbacks which keep the earth from a runaway greenhouse effect (which is very unlikely to happen because the feedbacks are too weak to do this (although methane release (anthropogenic and naturally) might be nasty) I can look up more details for you, but I currently don't have much time as I'm preparing to go to Oklahoma (OU) again to finish my lightning research project. jimcripwell: I'm not going into discussion if it is an hypothesis or a theory. If you consider it an hypothesis than you will likely have to consider nearly all theories an hypothesis, especially many astronomical ones (thanks to chaotic behavior). The main physical processes are quite well understood, but the details aren't. The climate is quite complicated indeed. (someone here told me that that wasn't an excuse, and that it was simple, everything could be explained by the sun, but he never gave that simple explanation .) Definitely we'll see what the future brings, but the sun remains a problem because it is not well represented in the models (yet). Like you guys here, I believe that a dalton or definitely a Maunder type minimum will have some influence on the earth's climate. I have been discussing this with many AGW researchers, and although they have more doubts, many agree that a prolonged solar minimum could have a (small?) effect on the earth's climate. Still a bigger solar influence than recently thought might not explain AGW theory wrong, because while solar activity has been gradually declining (at least not increasing rapidly) in the last decades, the temperature has, and until now there hasn't been any other good hypothesis (except CO2) explaining why the temperature has risen so rapidly over the past decades. poitsplace: You have a point. You even share my opinion somewhat, although I think the temperature increase is likely a bit larger than you are proposing. But even a 2 C temperature rise is not a complete disaster and end of the world. The adaptation to it will likely cost a lot of money though. It will be very difficult to reverse this heating. Actually it is already quite impossible, but we can prevent more future warming, which can become (really) annoying and expensive. Also we can prevent other environmental problems from oil and coal use and a very severe acidification of the oceans (which will likely have major impacts on many ecosystems). If you would have read the IPCC report you would have noticed clearly that they state that it is too early to say if AGW has a significant effect on many extreme weather on earth. (except heat records, maybe, but only maybe on precip extremes in some places, and even more maybe stronger hurricanes (although more heat content, models don't show an increased amount of hurricanes because of an increased upper level wind shear in many areas). If you hear differently it is likely media blowup bullshit. Weather patterns will change somewhat due to a possible decrease in temperature change. Some places might see more storms, some places less. Here in the Netherlands the amount of storms has decreased from around 30 per year around 1950 to around 20 per year or even a bit less currently. You should restudy your water vapor analysis, because your analyis is quite incorrect. It is likely more expensive to adapt to a warmer world than it is to prevent it, but it is also likely that a large part of it can't be prevented. Anyway, in the future we'll need to find another way of energy production, and countries which have an early start will have a grand economic advantage. donmartin: Yeah, that is a well know theory. There you can see that past climate has been greatly influenced by continental drift. (the formation of the antarctic circumpolar current is a very notable "recent" example). woodstove: I've heard enough of these conspiracy theories . Please come with scientific arguments. I only agree with your statement that a significant global cooling (ice age) is more dangerous and expensive than a significant global warming. An ice age is not likely to come soon though.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 3, 2009 13:35:59 GMT
I'm taking a look at the article magellan proposed.
it states:
"FM's theory, in agreement with the actual empirically verified greenhouse mechanism, teaches us instead that the heat transfer from the surface is by non-radiative processes: vertical & horizontal convection, water evaporation, cloud formation, rain and snow. And FM teaches us more: Our atmosphere has, in the global and time-averaged mean value, a constant optical thickness, so, when more CO2 is injected, the atmosphere compensates by changing its water vapor content to regain the equilibrium.
The atmosphere optimizes its optical thickness to allow for the maximum heat transfer to space, by adjusting its IR absorbance."
I've not read the complete document yet, but this is like a major change in assumptions, and absolutely counter intuitive (this doesn't prove it wrong though). I mean, how do get the famous cool desert nights? (extremely stable atmosphere inhibiting convection, no moisture, no clouds, rain and snow) I can think of many other situations where an inclusion of LW radiation does explain the situation, (there are many stations actually measuring radiation balance from the surface, and without LW radiation from the surface the complete atmospheric boundary layer theory and heat transfer laws are bullshit) but these assumptions can't.
Anyway, I will continue reading and let you guys know.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 3, 2009 13:57:26 GMT
crakar24: CO2 destroying the planet and life is media bullshit. Like I said before all extreme changes are very unlikely to happen. And what is extreme? If sea level rises 7 m in 2000 years mankind will survive that. People will likely have to move, which will probably result in wars, but wars are likely even without that. Some places crops might not grow anymore (likely something else though), but at many other places crops might grow better. One of the biggest threats is the acidification of the ocean, which will and has already happen(ed) even if you think AGW is not true. I've had many discussions with scientists who have looked upon the raw data first hand. The lag is not very clear, but recent research has increased confidence in the lag somewhat. Ice ages are triggered (forced) by several mechanisms: 1) orbital changes (milankovic) 2) Ice sheet-flexibility of the earth's crust: inertia of the large ice sheets 3) CO2 feedback 4) albedo feedback If you look at orbital changes alone you will find that not all minima (insolation) trigger ice ages. Strong minima might trigger ice ages, some do not. Weaker minima sometimes do trigger ice ages. More recently it was discovered that the inertia of the large ice sheets is likely just as important as the milankovic cycles. This is a balance between the weight of the ice pushing the earth's surface down and the upward force of the earth's crust ("buoyancy"). Also CO2 and the albedo feedback are needed to create an ice age. With these forcings and feedbacks you can explain (and model) quite well how an ice age forms and the "rapid" temperature increase after an ice age. You can't get this profile without CO2 as a strong feedback. What's different this time? Roughly: This time WE are adding CO2, so now we are amplifying this feedback, with a greater temperature response. CO2 is a feedback, which responses to other forcings (or act as a forcing itself if put into the atmosphere by vulcanic activity or humans), but there are other feedbacks which keep the earth from a runaway greenhouse effect (which is very unlikely to happen because the feedbacks are too weak to do this (although methane release (anthropogenic and naturally) might be nasty) I can look up more details for you, but I currently don't have much time as I'm preparing to go to Oklahoma (OU) again to finish my lightning research project. jimcripwell: I'm not going into discussion if it is an hypothesis or a theory. If you consider it an hypothesis than you will likely have to consider nearly all theories an hypothesis, especially many astronomical ones (thanks to chaotic behavior). The main physical processes are quite well understood, but the details aren't. The climate is quite complicated indeed. (someone here told me that that wasn't an excuse, and that it was simple, everything could be explained by the sun, but he never gave that simple explanation .) Definitely we'll see what the future brings, but the sun remains a problem because it is not well represented in the models (yet). Like you guys here, I believe that a dalton or definitely a Maunder type minimum will have some influence on the earth's climate. I have been discussing this with many AGW researchers, and although they have more doubts, many agree that a prolonged solar minimum could have a (small?) effect on the earth's climate. Still a bigger solar influence than recently thought might not explain AGW theory wrong, because while solar activity has been gradually declining (at least not increasing rapidly) in the last decades, the temperature has, and until now there hasn't been any other good hypothesis (except CO2) explaining why the temperature has risen so rapidly over the past decades. poitsplace: You have a point. You even share my opinion somewhat, although I think the temperature increase is likely a bit larger than you are proposing. But even a 2 C temperature rise is not a complete disaster and end of the world. The adaptation to it will likely cost a lot of money though. It will be very difficult to reverse this heating. Actually it is already quite impossible, but we can prevent more future warming, which can become (really) annoying and expensive. Also we can prevent other environmental problems from oil and coal use and a very severe acidification of the oceans (which will likely have major impacts on many ecosystems). If you would have read the IPCC report you would have noticed clearly that they state that it is too early to say if AGW has a significant effect on many extreme weather on earth. (except heat records, maybe, but only maybe on precip extremes in some places, and even more maybe stronger hurricanes (although more heat content, models don't show an increased amount of hurricanes because of an increased upper level wind shear in many areas). If you hear differently it is likely media blowup bullshit. Weather patterns will change somewhat due to a possible decrease in temperature change. Some places might see more storms, some places less. Here in the Netherlands the amount of storms has decreased from around 30 per year around 1950 to around 20 per year or even a bit less currently. You should restudy your water vapor analysis, because your analyis is quite incorrect. It is likely more expensive to adapt to a warmer world than it is to prevent it, but it is also likely that a large part of it can't be prevented. Anyway, in the future we'll need to find another way of energy production, and countries which have an early start will have a grand economic advantage. donmartin: Yeah, that is a well know theory. There you can see that past climate has been greatly influenced by continental drift. (the formation of the antarctic circumpolar current is a very notable "recent" example). woodstove: I've heard enough of these conspiracy theories . Please come with scientific arguments. I only agree with your statement that a significant global cooling (ice age) is more dangerous and expensive than a significant global warming. An ice age is not likely to come soon though. Rather than give speeches, why not just cite the actual evidence? You should restudy your water vapor analysis, because your analyis is quite incorrect. Then cite the evidence to support your POV. As for your opening statement: CO2 destroying the planet and life is media bullshit. Quite the contrary. It is more than the media promoting such pronouncements of doom. Met O is a good example. How many examples would you like? Then you contradict yourself by stating CO2 is causing acidification in the oceans which implies it is destroying the planet. Is that too media BS? BTW, if atmospheric CO2 has residence lifetime of hundreds of years, how does it get back to the oceans to acidify them? It would be nice if we could concentrate on one issue at a time rather than get long winded speeches. Of course you don' t have the time?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 3, 2009 14:05:01 GMT
Hi aj.
It is you, not I, who use the word conspiracy: "I've heard enough of these conspiracy theories."
What I said was that Pachauri spearheads an effort to tilt the balance of power away from the West and that there are Socialist underpinnings to the international green movement.
These are facts -- not theories.
I actually think India should be allowed to get electricity to every one of its citizens that it can. I think China should get to, as well. I think Africa should do the same, and so should all parts of the undeveloped world.
Unlike the self-righteous within the green movement who consider mankind a scourge on the face of the Earth, I like humanity.
When I read history, I see that peoples that manage to develop economically inevitably demand clean water and clean air, over time.
Where the greens go wrong today is in attempting to prevent the rest of the world from doing as their own countries have done. It is hypocritical, paternalistic, and wrong.
You are fortunate to come from the Netherlands, where there is relatively cheap and abundant electric power.
If you were one of the poor tribespeople of undeveloped Africa, we couldn't exactly have this online debate, could we? And if Al Gore gets his way the people in the undeveloped world won't get electric power any time soon. He views carbon trading, in which the huddled masses remain frozen out of Western comfort, as perfectly acceptable -- nigh, as an enlightened solution.
By the way, if Al Gore truly viewed CO2 as something that posed him and his family any kind of real threat, do you think his carbon footprint (from his house that uses 20 times the U.S. average per household of electricity and his dozens of jet trips a year) would be one of the largest of any individual on Earth?
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 3, 2009 14:11:35 GMT
I think I have a feeling of what is going wrong in this experiment. First they are not assuming that there is no LW radiation (as stated before) but that it less important. Well, yes, this is only partly true 1) the surface does not have the same temperature as the air above. This depends on mixing processes however. 2) measurements in the boundary layer (Cabauw) will always show that convection, evaporation and mixing processes are the most important processes (because this actually defines the boundary layer...) 3) the layer above the BL has a different temperature and composition as the BL itself. Why? Because mixing processes play a less important role. Also in the upper troposphere and the rest of the atmosphere the water content is extremely low. Convection between the troposphere and the stratosphere is extremely limited if impossible due to the tremendous stable structure. They are looking at several different layers which should cool and warm with CO2 heating. They omit that there are several other mechanisms, forcings and feedbacks with have a strong effect. Mm, a gray body assumption? I don't like the way he uses the Kirchoff's law, you can't use that locally and just equate emissivity to absorptivity. There are many other assumptions that I'm not happy with. This sounds like a nice experiment, but he forgot some major points.
|
|