|
Post by spaceman on Sept 5, 2009 19:26:42 GMT
anybody here actually work with co2? When co2 gets cold does it take longer for it to warm up? What is the refractive index of co2? Does the refractive index of co2 actually allow the light to enter it or is reflected off? Does it add a shine to the atmosphere? An experiment with several cubic meter boxes could tell us a whole lot. One with current atmosphere, one with less co2 and 1 with more. Varying degrees of humidity as well could add complexity. Someone here must have made 'snow' with frozen co2. (it's water mixed with frozen co2) It takes forever for the 'snow' to melt even if it is warm.. But all that aside, arguring about tenths of degrees and wether the insturments used to measure temps is not very useful. Written records and observations are. Price of wheat in gliders, growing lines of crops, what kinds of trees were growing in various places, the relative size of people, (smaller people can survive on fewer calories), what was reported as ice free, and what then froze over. And since there is this big fire in Califorina, how much co2 is it throwing off? There is a study on that. To say that co2 is forcing global warming as the only cause, when it also happened to coincide with a very active solar cycle in the last 100 years is absurd. It'd have to more than a trace gas, and we'd have to put in a great deal more than 3/10ths of 1%. While we are at manmade global warming, besides co2, ever calculate how much heat is trapped in all those cars out there from the sun shining in them? Or just running a car how much heat is given off, times millions? And, how about drying clothe in clothes driers, a number of communities have restrictions on hanging laundry out to dry, 'it's unsightly'. Calculate how much heat is given off by the BIG clothes drier? My point is that there are a lot of other factors as well, however I don't think any of them are as important as what the sun does. I don't think we know all the mechanics for heating the atmosphere of the earth from the sun.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 5, 2009 20:22:38 GMT
"It turned out that the greenhouse effect of sulfate clouds reflecting heat back to the surface of Venus was outweighed by cooling due to their reflection of incoming sunlight."So he didn't learn then? Where there is life, there is hope.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 5, 2009 21:04:10 GMT
Why are you refusing to answer a simple question?
Why are you? I asked you how you can be sure what temperatures were 400 years ago. You say they were lower than to-day. how do you know this?
1. I am asking for experimental information about C02 greenhouse warming using test atmospheres. Where is it? Does it exist or not? I am not interesting in theory.
"test atmospheres"??
Why don't we start by you explaining how the earth has managed to achieve an average temperature of ~287K (~14 deg C). You need to bear in mind that the earth only receives an average ~235 w/m2 solar insolation which equates to a surface temperature of ~255K (-18 deg C). 2. Your chosen station to 'end the bullshit about urban heat island influences' where you said it was unchanged for 200 years is surrounded by steel and is newly located.
It isn't surrounded by steel. You don't know anything about the place. Youv'e never seen it or been anywhere near it. You refuse to read the Butler paper which concludes that the station is unaffected by UH - by which it means any effect (if it exists) cannot be measured. To understand this, though, you would need to have a fundamental grasp of statistics which you clearly lack.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 5, 2009 21:46:26 GMT
Why are you refusing to answer a simple question? Why are you? I asked you how you can be sure what temperatures were 400 years ago. You say they were lower than to-day. how do you know this? I think that we have finally established that glc is a troll with these non-responses. Circular arguments, repeated arguments, non-answers, obfuscation -- the general detritus left behind in caves by trolls. Don't feed the trolls.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 5, 2009 22:21:57 GMT
[Snip] It isn't surrounded by steel. You don't know anything about the place. Youv'e never seen it or been anywhere near it. You refuse to read the Butler paper which concludes that the station is unaffected by UH - by which it means any effect (if it exists) cannot be measured. To understand this, though, you would need to have a fundamental grasp of statistics which you clearly lack. Speaking of UHI ... www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~jon/WWW/uhi-melb.html" Whilst large urban areas such as Melbourne have been excluded from the dataset used to determine climate change, the UHI in the small towns may still cause a unrealistic warming in the temperature records used to determine climate change. The research into Melbourne's UHI has been used to more fully understand the physical processes that occur in small towns. The problem with the temperature records from small towns is if climatologists use these records to examine climate change then what they may actually be seeing is how the urban area has warmed as the town has grown, rather than how the larger scale climate has changed. "
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 6, 2009 0:28:56 GMT
I think that we have finally established that glc is a troll with these non-responses.
Circular arguments, repeated arguments, non-answers, obfuscation -- the general detritus left behind in caves by trolls.
Don't feed the trolls.
Now then - don't be silly, woodstove. There's no point in my trying to persuade radiant of the co2 greenhouse effect until I establish his/her level of understanding.
You, radiant and several other posters on this blog reject aspects of AGW which are accepted by all mainstream sceptic scientists. I can't repeat this often enough. Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Jack Barrett (who has actually taken on the IPCC in debate), Garth Paltridge and numerous others all recognise that doubling CO2 (at equilibrium and with other factors constant) will result in a temperature increase of ~1 deg C.
Whenever I raise points that all of the above would agree with, then I'm either a "troll" or a "warmaholic" or similar. I realise that the idea that CO2 just might cause a change in climate is something you'd rather not think about but - get used to it - it is a fact. CO2 absorbs LW IR radiation. The earth emits LW IR radiation. The earth cools by emitting LW IR radiation. This is how the earth maintains a stable climate. More CO2 will reduce the flow of IR energy to space.
The question is not whether or not climate will be affected, it is by how much.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 6, 2009 0:47:41 GMT
Speaking of UHI ...
Dear Ratty
Thank you for your contribution , but I do know about UHI. I have experience of the UHI effect. I've seen winters where the ground is frozen hard in rural areas but not in the urban areas. I've been out to a country pub on a summer's evening and returned to the city to find it several degrees warmer. I am aware of it and so are the people who are responsible for our temperature records. They know that there are times when UH will be significant and other times when it is not.
I don't believe that UH has had a significant effect on the global temperature trend. The satellite records show similar trends to the surface records. Ocean temperatures have also increased. If UH is a factor in global trends then there must be a large UH increase over time. It's not enough just to say that UH is present - it's possibly been present for several decades .
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 6, 2009 1:11:31 GMT
Why don't we start by you explaining how the earth has managed to achieve an average temperature of ~287K (~14 deg C). You need to bear in mind that the earth only receives an average ~235 w/m2 solar insolation which equates to a surface temperature of ~255K (-18 deg C). Why not start with a model of clouds that move? Sunray shines and heats the unclouded ground, cloud moves exposing low emitting cold ground and covering warm ground.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 6, 2009 1:15:49 GMT
I think that we have finally established that glc is a troll with these non-responses.
Circular arguments, repeated arguments, non-answers, obfuscation -- the general detritus left behind in caves by trolls.
Don't feed the trolls. Now then - don't be silly, woodstove. There's no point in my trying to persuade radiant of the co2 greenhouse effect until I establish his/her level of understanding. You, radiant and several other posters on this blog reject aspects of AGW which are accepted by all mainstream sceptic scientists. I can't repeat this often enough. Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Jack Barrett (who has actually taken on the IPCC in debate), Garth Paltridge and numerous others all recognise that doubling CO2 (at equilibrium and with other factors constant) will result in a temperature increase of ~1 deg C. Whenever I raise points that all of the above would agree with, then I'm either a "troll" or a "warmaholic" or similar. I realise that the idea that CO2 just might cause a change in climate is something you'd rather not think about but - get used to it - it is a fact. CO2 absorbs LW IR radiation. The earth emits LW IR radiation. The earth cools by emitting LW IR radiation. This is how the earth maintains a stable climate. More CO2 will reduce the flow of IR energy to space. The question is not whether or not climate will be affected, it is by how much. I will agree that GLC is NOT a troll. Yes, co2 will have an effect on temp and as you so well put it, the question is.....what really is that effect of doubling. No one really knows, but the parimeters seem to be .3 to 1C. Depends on if one tries to imagine the hydro cycle along with the radiation. The other question is....how easily is that effect overcome by natural climatic change. From graphs of co2 and temp, it would appear to be easily overcome as the co2 in geo time has risen while the temp has dropped like a rock. One thing I think we can all agree on is that another 2-3C warming is not bad for life on the planet. Wayyyyy better than a 2-3C cooling.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 6, 2009 1:25:39 GMT
Speaking of UHI ...Dear Ratty Thank you for your contribution , but I do know about UHI. I have experience of the UHI effect. I've seen winters where the ground is frozen hard in rural areas but not in the urban areas. I've been out to a country pub on a summer's evening and returned to the city to find it several degrees warmer. I am aware of it and so are the people who are responsible for our temperature records. They know that there are times when UH will be significant and other times when it is not. I don't believe that UH has had a significant effect on the global temperature trend. The satellite records show similar trends to the surface records. Ocean temperatures have also increased. If UH is a factor in global trends then there must be a large UH increase over time. It's not enough just to say that UH is present - it's possibly been present for several decades . You still don't understand one speck of what the issue is. You think you do, but you don't. Illustration Of The Sensitivity In The Minimum Overnight pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/illustration-of-the-sensitivity-in-the-minimum-overnight-temperature-to-even-small-changes-in-land-surface-processes/There is a remarkable lack of understanding with respect to the sensitivity of the minimum temperature overnight to relatively slight changes in surface conditions. This post illustrates one example of this sensitivity. The implication of such influences is that the use of the minimum temperature as part of the construction of the global average surface temperature trend is seriously flawed, as we discussed in our paper Christy has done empirical studies that support exactly what Pielke says. All you have are platitudes and self aggrandized utterances of empty rhetoric. The Paper “Heat Balance In The Nocturnal Boundary Layer During CASES-99″ By Sun Et Al 2003pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/the-paper-heat-balance-in-the-nocturnal-boundary-layer-during-cases-99-by-sun-et-al-2003/I am aware of it and so are the people who are responsible for our temperature records. Apparently you and "the people who are responsible for our temperature records" can be included with Schmidt and Annan who Pielke state don't understand boundary physics. Now that I've read up on the subject, the evidence is quite clear. It is not something Pielke dreamed up on a whim. Ignore and obfuscate all you wish, you haven't a clue.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 6, 2009 1:49:45 GMT
Speaking of UHI ...Dear Ratty Thank you for your contribution , but I do know about UHI. I have experience of the UHI effect. I've seen winters where the ground is frozen hard in rural areas but not in the urban areas. I've been out to a country pub on a summer's evening and returned to the city to find it several degrees warmer. I am aware of it and so are the people who are responsible for our temperature records. They know that there are times when UH will be significant and other times when it is not. I don't believe that UH has had a significant effect on the global temperature trend. The satellite records show similar trends to the surface records. Ocean temperatures have also increased. If UH is a factor in global trends then there must be a large UH increase over time. It's not enough just to say that UH is present - it's possibly been present for several decades . You still don't understand one speck of what the issue is. You think you do, but you don't. Illustration Of The Sensitivity In The Minimum Overnight pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/illustration-of-the-sensitivity-in-the-minimum-overnight-temperature-to-even-small-changes-in-land-surface-processes/There is a remarkable lack of understanding with respect to the sensitivity of the minimum temperature overnight to relatively slight changes in surface conditions. This post illustrates one example of this sensitivity. The implication of such influences is that the use of the minimum temperature as part of the construction of the global average surface temperature trend is seriously flawed, as we discussed in our paper Christy has done empirical studies that support exactly what Pielke says. All you have are platitudes and self aggrandized utterances of empty rhetoric. The Paper “Heat Balance In The Nocturnal Boundary Layer During CASES-99″ By Sun Et Al 2003pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/the-paper-heat-balance-in-the-nocturnal-boundary-layer-during-cases-99-by-sun-et-al-2003/I am aware of it and so are the people who are responsible for our temperature records. Apparently you and "the people who are responsible for our temperature records" can be included with Schmidt and Annan who Pielke state don't understand boundary physics. Now that I've read up on the subject, the evidence is quite clear. It is not something Pielke dreamed up on a whim. Ignore and obfuscate all you wish, you haven't a clue. Magellon: You are totally correct that Schmidt has no understanding at all of boundary physics. Their Real Climate site tried to have a discussion about this a while back and it was a total cluster of ignorance. Tamino/Shmidt/ and Mann all got into the act and made total fools of themselves. Funny that they didn't at least study it a bit before they tried to look so stupid.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 6, 2009 2:11:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 6, 2009 2:30:14 GMT
I just did, it's not very good. The second link is a lesson in nitpicking.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 6, 2009 2:53:21 GMT
I just did, it's not very good. The second link is a lesson in nitpicking. Wow, you're a quick reader and no doubt thoroughly discredited everything he says. What exactly isn't very good? Laying down facts is nitpicking?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 6, 2009 9:39:00 GMT
Apparently you and "the people who are responsible for our temperature records" can be included with Schmidt and Annan who Pielke state don't understand boundary physics.
it has nothing to do with boundary layer physics. you have no idea what Pielke's argument is - as is quite apparent from your post. I've challenged you to explain it - but you can't. It has absolutely nothing to do with urban heat, by the way, so why you are bringing it up in response to my post I'm not sure.
I've also asked you to explain why the facts that the trends since ~1990 are unimportant - and there has still not been a response.
Now that I've read up on the subject, the evidence is quite clear. It is not something Pielke dreamed up on a whim.
Explain it then. Just the basic hypothesis will do.
Ignore and obfuscate all you wish, you haven't a clue.
I'll wait for a couple of short paragraphs from you which explains Pielkes paper(s) and see whether you have a clue or not. I reckon I could sum it up in about 6 or 7 sentences so it shouldn't be too time consuming.
PS I made the following statement in an earlier post:
"I can't repeat this often enough. Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Jack Barrett (who has actually taken on the IPCC in debate), Garth Paltridge and numerous others all recognise that doubling CO2 (at equilibrium and with other factors constant) will result in a temperature increase of ~1 deg C."
I forgot to add .... Roger Pielke (Snr and Jr).
|
|