|
Post by spaceman on Jan 2, 2010 19:24:36 GMT
I have a question, if trees only grow in the spring and summer, how did they get temps for the rest of the year from tree rings as proxies?
Since we can tell co2 so well, whether the co2 is from burning trees or grass, using isotopes, and AGW people claim that the solar cycles are invalid, doesn't that make AGW invalid since it uses the same methodology? Some of the verification of solar cycles is looking at the isotopes in tree rings from cosmic rays, n'est pas?
As far as I can tell solar cycles haven't been subjected to linear regression, whereas data from temps have?
I suppose that since we are able to tell radiation from other planets, perhaps Steve could give us a reason why Mars has warmed during the same period? And the other planets as well?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 2, 2010 23:13:08 GMT
"I suppose that since we are able to tell radiation from other planets, perhaps Steve could give us a reason why Mars has warmed during the same period? And the other planets as well? "
I have been annoying local politicians. Is there something reliable I can quote about the other planets warming?
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Jan 3, 2010 0:09:47 GMT
Steve, please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not correct to say that Mars does not "emit" energy, but instead reflects energy/heat, and likewise, outerspace does not "emit" energy/heat, but is the medium through which heat is disbursed from hotter mass/energy to colder mass/energy?
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 3, 2010 0:44:31 GMT
It's the website from our National Weather Center (which is also a research institution, and work closely together with the Utrecht University where I study). You've actually found something I hadn't found yet. Their presentation of the data has always been limited by the laws which were created to "protect" the private weather institutions, but recently they dropped this law, and they have been doing a great job in getting everything freely available on their website (which includes the temperature record from 1706 to now from the place where I live, and the HIRLAM regional weather model products, which are very interesting if you live in Europe).
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 3, 2010 11:25:02 GMT
Steve, please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not correct to say that Mars does not "emit" energy, but instead reflects energy/heat, and likewise, outerspace does not "emit" energy/heat, but is the medium through which heat is disbursed from hotter mass/energy to colder mass/energy? Mars both emits and reflects energy. The energy it emits is dependent on its temperature. All objects emit some energy according to their temperature. The energy in outer space (the microwave background) is the radiation left over from when the universe cooled enough to become transparent - ie. cooled enough for the ionised plasma (which is not transparent to radiation) to form uni-ionised atomic and molecular hydrogen/helium. ie. so the microwave radiation is 13 billion year-old emission from what was then hot ionised gas.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 3, 2010 16:24:54 GMT
Steve, please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not correct to say that Mars does not "emit" energy, but instead reflects energy/heat, and likewise, outerspace does not "emit" energy/heat, but is the medium through which heat is disbursed from hotter mass/energy to colder mass/energy? Mars both emits and reflects energy. The energy it emits is dependent on its temperature. All objects emit some energy according to their temperature. The energy in outer space (the microwave background) is the radiation left over from when the universe cooled enough to become transparent - ie. cooled enough for the ionised plasma (which is not transparent to radiation) to form uni-ionised atomic and molecular hydrogen/helium. ie. so the microwave radiation is 13 billion year-old emission from what was then hot ionised gas. Its amazing. . . .no its astounding. . . .that you can take such a nuanced view of the universe but close your mind to the nuances of earth's atmosphere which you boil down to artificially refined processes. Is there bucks in this for you too?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jan 4, 2010 0:01:51 GMT
All that is falsified is the theory that if we regulate CO2 we can avoid climate catastrophes.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 4, 2010 0:48:17 GMT
There is no doubt about the fact that we can't avoid climate catastrophes with our current knowledge and technology.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Jan 4, 2010 0:58:11 GMT
aj1983:
Agreement in total. Again, just imagine engineering our way around a 0.59 meter (IPCC AR4), or Gorical (20 meter) prognosticated rise in sea level only to see it rise 20 or so meters anyway (like MIS-5e and 11 did long before the discovery of beans and salsa).
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 4, 2010 2:27:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Jan 4, 2010 10:10:23 GMT
Mars, despite having 15x more CO2 in the atmosphere than Earth, has theoretical and practical surface temperature equal (210K).
Source: NASA Planetary Fact Sheet
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2010 10:33:46 GMT
Mars both emits and reflects energy. The energy it emits is dependent on its temperature. All objects emit some energy according to their temperature. The energy in outer space (the microwave background) is the radiation left over from when the universe cooled enough to become transparent - ie. cooled enough for the ionised plasma (which is not transparent to radiation) to form uni-ionised atomic and molecular hydrogen/helium. ie. so the microwave radiation is 13 billion year-old emission from what was then hot ionised gas. Its amazing. . . .no its astounding. . . .that you can take such a nuanced view of the universe but close your mind to the nuances of earth's atmosphere which you boil down to artificially refined processes. Is there bucks in this for you too? Have you ever thought about pausing and thinking before pressing the Post Reply button? Both problems involve the application of basic radiation physics, and I think I've applied them in a similar way. Perhaps there is still a Steady State man somewhere complaining at my simple assumption that the radiation could only be the result of a Big Bang, when I can be so nuanced in my interpretation of AGW. Applying a linear trend to data in the absence of the desire to understand the physics seems like the more "artificially refined" idea.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2010 10:55:01 GMT
Mars, despite having 15x more CO2 in the atmosphere than Earth, has theoretical and practical surface temperature equal (210K). Source: NASA Planetary Fact Sheet Mars has about 210ppm of water vapour. Earth has about 10000ppm of water vapour. Given that Mars surface pressure is 0.7% that of earth, I make it that earth has 6800 times more H2O in its atmosphere than Mars (not accounting for earth's larger size). Really, though, you need to do the radiative calculations to get the expected impact of the CO2 on the temperature of Mars.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 4, 2010 13:09:05 GMT
I did, a few years ago (I studied a planetary atmospheres course), and I encourage you all to do it.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 4, 2010 13:16:42 GMT
I did, a few years ago (I studied a planetary atmospheres course), and I encourage you all to do it. AJ: With the huge amount of co2 on Mars, what did the calculations show?
|
|