|
Post by davidsbsd on Jun 24, 2009 14:30:40 GMT
Wow, what a FAIL! - did you even look at the graph?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 24, 2009 17:32:00 GMT
Quick comment: OK....I am kinda old so maybe that helps.
When you are talking about temp increase as a result of increasing co2, you are totally missing the mark. NO place in history has CO2 been the "cause" of increasing temps, it has been the result of increasing temps. I know that is hard to wrap some people's minds around, but it is just plain old fact.
As to the cause of those increasing temps? I would have to say I don't know, and I have not read anywhere where anyone actually knows. There are suggestions, but no actual hard facts.
I shake my head in amazement at how some people have put on tin foil hats and plugged their ears and closed their eyes. They are not looking for the true cause of our increase in temps as they think they have found it.
I would suggest that you look at the properties of co2. It does NOT provide one ounce of heat. One must find the source of the heat, not the result of the heat.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 24, 2009 18:45:20 GMT
Quick comment: OK....I am kinda old so maybe that helps. When you are talking about temp increase as a result of increasing co2, you are totally missing the mark. NO place in history has CO2 been the "cause" of increasing temps, it has been the result of increasing temps. I know that is hard to wrap some people's minds around, but it is just plain old fact. As to the cause of those increasing temps? I would have to say I don't know, and I have not read anywhere where anyone actually knows. There are suggestions, but no actual hard facts. And one of those suggestions is a rise in co2...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 24, 2009 19:23:14 GMT
Yes SoCold, CO2 is a suggestion but not a fact. There are lots of suggestions: 1. Solar Cycles 2. Solar wind effects on cloud formations
Just to name a few. As far as I can ascertain, all have about the same degree of validity at this time. Altho, the solar wind influence has proven to be much more interesting as far as cause/effect than CO2.
Too bad that historically we don't have more info. The temps 6,000 BP had to have a cause, but no one seems to know what it is. And even the MWP had to have a cause, but it is subjective in nature as well. Just as our warming since the Little Ice Age has to have a cause, but we are dearth to really know what it is.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 24, 2009 19:29:44 GMT
In the US and apparantly Canada/Aussie/NZ this past year has seen record lows broken on a large scale. And not only record lows, but records for the coldest daily high temp.
I do not know if this is the continuation of the cooling trend, but it deff bears watching.
I am not very keen on a Little Ice Age, nor a full fledged Ice Age. For the benifit of mankind, we need to see temps at least 2C higher than right now. Somehow, I don't think that is going to happen as the increase in clouds etc will prevent it.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 24, 2009 21:02:30 GMT
2C higher than today would see significant sea level rise and glacial water supply depletion. In the only time in history when we have massive cities dependent on those water supplies and coastal conditions. Far from being a good thing it could be a disaster.
Record low temperatures would not disapear in a warmer world. In fact as an example notice this year compard to typical years in the 80s and 90s it's exceptionally warm, yet as you point out there are record cold events at certain locations even this year.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 24, 2009 21:25:02 GMT
Socold wrote: And one of those suggestions is a rise in co2...
I am glad to read that you realize that the correlation between co2 and temp is only a suggestion.
2C would be a great boon for mankind. We have shown the ability to move, in ref to rising sea levels. I am not so sure that sea levels would rise as much as the global warming models show tho. Right now we are observing increasing cloud cover and also increased precip over Antarctica and Greenland. This cloud cover and increased precip follows global cooling to a "T". At least that is what the cooling models I have read about indicate.
The record low temps are not worrisome in themselves, it is the area that has observed record low temps and the frequency. 581 record lows for June so far just in the US. The greater worry is the record low HIGH temps. Those have been broken this year with a frequency never observed by us before.
Something that deff bears watching.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 24, 2009 23:38:29 GMT
2C would be a great boon for mankind. We have shown the ability to move, in ref to rising sea levels. We've never faced a large rise in sea level. This will be something new. It's a given. Sea level rise from 5-6C warming was over 200 feet. So what are the numbers for previous months in all years since 1990? So what are the numbers for previous years and this year?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 25, 2009 0:31:42 GMT
SoCold: I do not know the numbers from years long past, and I do not have the time right now to add the numbers in recent memory that are recorded.
In a couple of weeks I may have time to add all of them or find a site that has done it.
I do know that in the Upper Midwest and Canada that this winter/srping has broken records it seems daily. And they are not warm records but cold records. Our state climatologist has indicated that the amount of records broken have broken the previous variations.
I will provide you with the exact information when time allows.
You wrote sea levels with 5-6C warming being 200 feet higher. This would not happen overnight and allow people plenty of time to migrate inland if that in fact happened. Historically, sea levels have been 440ft higher than present, so even a 200 ft rise would not be significant on a geological time scale.
I will say again that with what I have learned that a 5-6C rise in temps seems out of the question. The heat to cause this would have to be from the core of the earth and the sun. I don't see either heating to the degree required to produce enough heat for that rise.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 25, 2009 3:08:31 GMT
2C higher than today would see significant sea level rise and glacial water supply depletion. In the only time in history when we have massive cities dependent on those water supplies and coastal conditions. Far from being a good thing it could be a disaster. water supplies equal precipitation minus net glacial change. Thus those communities have been depending upon global warming for 200 years already. . . .not to speak of how the AGW alarmists love to point out there will be more moisture in the air thus even more precipitation.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 25, 2009 8:42:01 GMT
2C higher than today would see significant sea level rise and glacial water supply depletion. In the only time in history when we have massive cities dependent on those water supplies and coastal conditions. Far from being a good thing it could be a disaster. water supplies equal precipitation minus net glacial change. Thus those communities have been depending upon global warming for 200 years already. . . .not to speak of how the AGW alarmists love to point out there will be more moisture in the air thus even more precipitation. You'd think it would be kind of obvious since the "temperature" proxies are generally precipitation proxies and that the fundamental assumption is warmer=wetter.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 25, 2009 13:47:11 GMT
This mindset of co2....co2.....has really got to stop. So many have been blindsided by the lockstep mentality of proponents of co2 as being the only driver of temps. One gets that mindset and ignores all other evidence of potential climate making forces. We are being led off a cliff by those types of scientists/advocates.
What man adds to co2 is what.....//.03%/? a drop in the bucket. What the rising temps adds is much more than a drop in the bucket. Find the source of those rising temps and then a solution will be found.
The question I have, is there a solution? OR will the sun/earth do what it wants to do no matter what man does?
I am an old conservationist. Have been for years, it is my nature. I have also learned to follow the money trail, as that seems to always show the roots of a cause and the actual merits of a cause. From what I can glean, the idea that co2 is the main climate driver is horse manure. It is a small function of our total climate. Water vapor IS the main climate driver, yet our understanding of how it actually works long term is very poor.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 25, 2009 18:57:49 GMT
2C higher than today would see significant sea level rise and glacial water supply depletion. In the only time in history when we have massive cities dependent on those water supplies and coastal conditions. Far from being a good thing it could be a disaster. water supplies equal precipitation minus net glacial change. Thus those communities have been depending upon global warming for 200 years already. . . .not to speak of how the AGW alarmists love to point out there will be more moisture in the air thus even more precipitation. I used to think so until it was pointed out to me that glaciers act as water stores through the summer. If you just have snow then it's all gone by the end of spring and you get no water feed during the summer. On the otherhand if there is a glacier nearby feeding a river it will be fed even better in summer, even if it's net change over a year is zero. Once that glacier shrinks to an irrelevant size you will face very different water conditions in summer.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 25, 2009 21:24:34 GMT
water supplies equal precipitation minus net glacial change. Thus those communities have been depending upon global warming for 200 years already. . . .not to speak of how the AGW alarmists love to point out there will be more moisture in the air thus even more precipitation. I used to think so until it was pointed out to me that glaciers act as water stores through the summer. If you just have snow then it's all gone by the end of spring and you get no water feed during the summer. On the otherhand if there is a glacier nearby feeding a river it will be fed even better in summer, even if it's net change over a year is zero. Once that glacier shrinks to an irrelevant size you will face very different water conditions in summer. You are like a thirsty Somalian Luddite Socold. Don't you know what a dam is?
|
|
nasif
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by nasif on Jun 26, 2009 18:45:26 GMT
Hi, I am the author of the paper. Sorry to tell you, but the emissivities, absorptivities and total emittancies for carbon dioxide in my article are correct. That may be, it's more likely the underlying reasoning that is incorrect. One big clue I think is those bars for N2 and O2. N2 and O2 provide far less warming of the earth's atmosphere than co2, so something is wrong here. lmao seriously? A famous paper from over 100 years ago just happened to be falsified by a particular paper in 2008? What are the odds. Blog science is not science Nothing incorrect there. You can check the data from my article with the data of Hottel, Modest, Pitts and Sissom, Potter, Manrique, etc. The paper was falsified immediately after it saw the light, and modern experiments confirm Arrhenius' ideas are wrong. I have included in my post here the Arrhenius' formula which is being used by the IPCC. Now your turn of demonstrating it is wrong. Don't put words that I didn't say in my mouth. Science is not a blog, but the blog is a scientific blog.
|
|