|
Post by icefisher on Sept 11, 2010 21:00:34 GMT
Doug, Quick response, because I haven't time to read the responses from others yet. If you look at the Central England Temperature, you will see that the maximum temperature is about 6 weeks after the summer solstice, and after the winter solstice it takes about 2 months before things warm up. That's a relatively large delay that suggest to me your basic assumptions need checking. I think the seasonal differences in local solar insolation are much bigger than the 16 Watts difference caused by the ellipse of the orbit. Nautonnier, you are just saying really dumb things at the moment in a deliberate attempt to be unhelpful, so I'm going to ignore you. Thats a pretty limited argument Steve. CET is probably a victim of regional internal effects. Looking more broadly across longitude: If you look at NH ice the winter ice maximum comes about 4 days sooner past the winter solstice (March 12) than the summer ice minimum comes after the summer solstice (September 16) according to 8 years of Jaxa data. Looking at variation, the winter varies by 29 days and the summer by 15 days suggesting that the 4 days may not be a significant difference even though its the opposite of the effect you claim.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 12, 2010 0:43:41 GMT
My long term prediction is for a slow warming to early Holocene levels. That would be approx 2.0-2.5C warmer than current temps. Reasons: 1. Past history. We will miss an ice age this orbital time around. The NH is getting a little bit more sun each year at a slightly shorter angle. This will allow the ice to continue to melt out and I would expect the Arctic to be ice free during the summer by around 2050. 2. Co2 will contribute, but only marginally. I expect the co2 level to peak in the 420-440 range and then drop after that peak. The reason for this is the useage of coal will dimish as the resource becomes more scarce. 3. The era of "cheap" energy is about over. Basic economics shows that alternatives will become more widespread, and with said alternatives, fossil fuel useage will deminish. 4. Basic economics also shows that world wide, economic growth will continue to decline because of the more expensive energy curve.
The GAWG arguement is a hollow one at best.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Sept 12, 2010 2:11:42 GMT
My crystal ball is out of fix at the moment, Sigurdur, but my prediction is long term temperature decline, until whatever causes ice ages "falls off the cliff" and the big freeze begins. Based on quite a number of things but pollen counts amount to more than half of that. Arctic pollens are showing up in places that were too warm in the recent past - and semitropical in the early Holocene.
Yes, in all probability, CO2 will start to fall. Hopefully that decline will not be due to absence of human activity - but it could be.
And with someone who can tell academia to shove it in charge, electrical energy costs could drop drastically in the near future. Of course, we will still need fossil fuels to drive past the county line without a recharge, but while you and I don't think 75 miles or so between recharges is very practical, many suburbanites do not need half that much range.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 12, 2010 2:49:26 GMT
Yep: If I had a vehicle that could only go 75 miles on a charge I would be totalllllllly screwed.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 12, 2010 2:50:57 GMT
And thinking of trucking products.....there is just no other solution even close to the internal combust engine.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 14, 2010 0:06:30 GMT
Doug, Quick response, because I haven't time to read the responses from others yet. If you look at the Central England Temperature, you will see that the maximum temperature is about 6 weeks after the summer solstice, and after the winter solstice it takes about 2 months before things warm up. That's a relatively large delay that suggest to me your basic assumptions need checking. I think the seasonal differences in local solar insolation are much bigger than the 16 Watts difference caused by the ellipse of the orbit. Nautonnier, you are just saying really dumb things at the moment in a deliberate attempt to be unhelpful, so I'm going to ignore you. "Nautonnier, you are just saying really dumb things at the moment in a deliberate attempt to be unhelpful, so I'm going to ignore you."Which means that you cannot defeat the argument. Water vapor would exist in the atmosphere even if there was no CO 2 in the atmosphere. "Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasSo as it would exist in the atmosphere anyway - it would also act ass a GHG and keep the atmosphere warm. Yet you SoCold and glc are bound to deny that water vapor can act as ' an internal forcing' and have to follow the IPCC gospel that water vapor is only in the atmosphere as a feedback to CO 2 and other anthropogenic GHG emissions. The only way to make you realize the illogicality is to take you to the absurd conclusion of your argument that without CO 2 in the atmosphere water cannot evaporate. I am aware that the resulting cognitive dissonance will cause you mental difficulty. That's what happens in science when weak hypotheses meet facts.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 14, 2010 1:04:50 GMT
Without co2 it would be colder and there would be less water vapor (as a result, it's then colder still). Noone is claiming there would be no water vapor (ie no evaporation). Hence it's designation as a feedback.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 14, 2010 1:37:33 GMT
Without co2 it would be colder and there would be less water vapor (as a result, it's then colder still). Noone is claiming there would be no water vapor (ie no evaporation). Hence it's designation as a feedback. Socold how much of the warming in the atmosphere is due to CO2 in the atmosphere? Forcing plus Feedback broken out?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 14, 2010 2:16:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 14, 2010 2:22:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 14, 2010 5:00:40 GMT
Without co2 it would be colder and there would be less water vapor (as a result, it's then colder still). Noone is claiming there would be no water vapor (ie no evaporation). Hence it's designation as a feedback. HOWEVER, this effect is limited. As the percentage of water vapor in the air continues to rise so does its share of energy transfer across the troposphere. The increase in latent heat transfer is linear...but the increase in supposed GHG forcing by water vapor is logarithmic. Water vapor feedback is only strongly positive where its cold and by the time the temperature hits about 30C it's becoming a powerful, negative feedback...increasing rapidly for even tiny increases in temperature. This, by the way...is part of the reason ocean circulation changes can impact climate by so much...by DIRECTLY changing moisture balance.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 14, 2010 11:34:48 GMT
nautonnier
It's not an argument. It's a dumb statement. The statement is correct but it doesn't add anything to the discussion. You know it's true. But you also know that I and glc know that it is true. So it's just a distraction. That's why it's dumb.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 14, 2010 13:44:51 GMT
nautonnier It's not an argument. It's a dumb statement. The statement is correct but it doesn't add anything to the discussion. You know it's true. But you also know that I and glc know that it is true. So it's just a distraction. That's why it's dumb. Dumber still was glc saying the earth doesn't cool by convection.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 14, 2010 14:10:03 GMT
nautonnier It's not an argument. It's a dumb statement. The statement is correct but it doesn't add anything to the discussion. You know it's true. But you also know that I and glc know that it is true. So it's just a distraction. That's why it's dumb. Dumber still was glc saying the earth doesn't cool by convection. You're trolling magellan. To resolve the problem I suggest you replace the above post with your temperature prediction for the next year or three.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 14, 2010 16:46:55 GMT
Dumber still was glc saying the earth doesn't cool by convection. You're trolling magellan. To resolve the problem I suggest you replace the above post with your temperature prediction for the next year or three. Have you provided yours? Here is mine for comparison to all those who come out early 2011 = .28 and 2012 = .24 and 2013 =.31
|
|