|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 27, 2017 3:20:40 GMT
[ Snip ] I thought you were going to a Cricket game? Oh, I see ..... you were being unkind. O The offer of the spare room is hereby rescinded. Ok, a cricket game is torture then?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 27, 2017 3:26:43 GMT
[ Snip ] He has a tacticians eyes. Perhaps with a proper Aussie hat ... and I'd keep the wire rims. They lend an air of age and wisdom ... positively Churchillian. And a campaign slogan something like: Bring the Thunder Back Down Under!Don't know his voice, but, with proper delivery, his biting prose might blow them away. I like his chances with the disgusted and forgotten Australian. Whadda you think? Tell him we'd all love it if he'd run ... and if he can't run, walk will do. Campaign song would be the national anthem ... perhaps change the video portion. www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfR9iY5y94sBetter idea: Compulsory re-enactment of the video at sporting events while the song is played. Children to practice the performance, starting in primary school. Are you sure you're not an Aussie, MissouriBoy? PS: Did you notice depiction of a future globally-warmed Australia in the final scene?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 27, 2017 3:31:43 GMT
No one noticed the last sentence of the abstract???
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 27, 2017 3:55:06 GMT
[ Snip ] He has a tacticians eyes. Perhaps with a proper Aussie hat ... and I'd keep the wire rims. They lend an air of age and wisdom ... positively Churchillian. And a campaign slogan something like: Bring the Thunder Back Down Under!Don't know his voice, but, with proper delivery, his biting prose might blow them away. I like his chances with the disgusted and forgotten Australian. Whadda you think? Tell him we'd all love it if he'd run ... and if he can't run, walk will do. Campaign song would be the national anthem ... perhaps change the video portion. www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfR9iY5y94sBetter idea: Compulsory re-enactment of the video at sporting events while the song is played. Children to practice the performance, starting in primary school. Are you sure you're not an Aussie, MissouriBoy? PS: Did you notice depiction of a future globally-warmed Australia in the final scene? Is that what that was? I did notice the huge power lines going to your wind generation and solar collector fields? Always wondered why mum called me Ozzie when I misbehaved. Just occurred to me that you could shorten the campaign slogan to: Return the Thunder Down Under! Now it would fit nicely in the anthem lyrics too.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 27, 2017 3:59:15 GMT
No one noticed the last sentence of the abstract??? They're hedging.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 27, 2017 4:19:04 GMT
No one noticed the last sentence of the abstract??? Sorry Sig. Missed it. There was a cricket test match on ..... " We build on this insight to demonstrate directly from ice-core data that, over glacial–interglacial timescales, climate dynamics are largely driven by internal Earth system mechanisms, including a marked positive feedback effect from temperature variability on greenhouse-gas concentrations." If I read the red bit correctly, does that mean that the IPCC can now be disbanded, carbon reduction plans scrapped, and donations to the cause can cease?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 27, 2017 11:59:33 GMT
No one noticed the last sentence of the abstract??? The problem is that they cannot get away from GHG. This despite the continual proofs being provided that no GHG are necessary for the atmosphere to be warm. Perhaps they felt that they needed to put that in to get the paper through peer review and published.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 27, 2017 13:16:21 GMT
No one noticed the last sentence of the abstract??? The problem is that they cannot get away from GHG. This despite the continual proofs being provided that no GHG are necessary for the atmosphere to be warm. Perhaps they felt that they needed to put that in to get the paper through peer review and published. Please link to the proofs that H2O has not effect on atmospheric temperature.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 27, 2017 13:29:30 GMT
The problem is that they cannot get away from GHG. This despite the continual proofs being provided that no GHG are necessary for the atmosphere to be warm. Perhaps they felt that they needed to put that in to get the paper through peer review and published. Please link to the proofs that H2O has not effect on atmospheric temperature. That is not what I wrote Sig. What is often stated is that GHG (by which the alarmists mean CO2 and CH4, they see water as a feedback) are necessary to keep the atmosphere warm. That without the 'blanket' of CO2 the atmosphere would be tens of degrees colder. This was the claim alluded to in the last sentence of the paper. However, the atmosphere would be warmed by conduction from the surface and without radiative gases like CO2 could be a lot warmer as N2 and O2 have to become a lot hotter than the radiative gases to start radiating heat away. The international body that defines what lapse rates are created the International standard atmosphere from just using the gas laws and the fact that the pressure at the surface is higher naturally leads to the temperature being higher and as the pressure reduces the temperature reduces in line with the lapse rate as expected from Charles law, Boyles law and Avogadro's hypothesis - no CO2 required. Of course water and the hydrologic cycle modify this which is why the standard atmosphere also includes the wet adiabatic lapse rate. This generally acts to take water plus latent heat from the surface and on change of state at height release the latent heat to be radiated. For an added issue downwelling infrared photons cannot warm water and water makes up 75% of the world's surface and possibly more as all plants transpire water to keep cool and lift nutrients from their roots.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 27, 2017 13:57:11 GMT
Please link to the proofs that H2O has not effect on atmospheric temperature. That is not what I wrote Sig. What is often stated is that GHG (by which the alarmists mean CO2 and CH4, they see water as a feedback) are necessary to keep the atmosphere warm. That without the 'blanket' of CO2 the atmosphere would be tens of degrees colder. This was the claim alluded to in the last sentence of the paper. However, the atmosphere would be warmed by conduction from the surface and without radiative gases like CO2 could be a lot warmer as N2 and O2 have to become a lot hotter than the radiative gases to start radiating heat away. The international body that defines what lapse rates are created the International standard atmosphere from just using the gas laws and the fact that the pressure at the surface is higher naturally leads to the temperature being higher and as the pressure reduces the temperature reduces in line with the lapse rate as expected from Charles law, Boyles law and Avogadro's hypothesis - no CO2 required. Of course water and the hydrologic cycle modify this which is why the standard atmosphere also includes the wet adiabatic lapse rate. This generally acts to take water plus latent heat from the surface and on change of state at height release the latent heat to be radiated. For an added issue downwelling infrared photons cannot warm water and water makes up 75% of the world's surface and possibly more as all plants transpire water to keep cool and lift nutrients from their roots. Ok. Reason I asked is that H2O is the predominant radiator of energy, as well as transporter etc. It is the primary GHG.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 27, 2017 15:28:42 GMT
No one noticed the last sentence of the abstract??? Sorry Sig. Missed it. There was a cricket test match on ..... What are they testing?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 27, 2017 16:27:25 GMT
Nautonnier, you say “without radiative gases like CO2 (the atmosphere) could be a lot warmer as N2 and O2 have to become a lot hotter than the radiative gases to start radiating heat away.”
Where do you get these ideas? First of all, all gases radiate. Secondly, N2 and O2 radiate at any temperature above absolute zero. Thirdly, as Sigurdur says, H2O(like CO2) is a greenhouse gas and causes the earth and its atmosphere to be warmer than it would otherwise be.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 27, 2017 19:03:42 GMT
Nautonnier, you say “without radiative gases like CO2 (the atmosphere) could be a lot warmer as N2 and O2 have to become a lot hotter than the radiative gases to start radiating heat away.” Where do you get these ideas? First of all, all gases radiate. Secondly, N2 and O2 radiate at any temperature above absolute zero. Thirdly, as Sigurdur says, H2O(like CO2) is a greenhouse gas and causes the earth and its atmosphere to be warmer than it would otherwise be. How do we quantify, is it necessary to quantify, heat in the atmosphere derived from the pressure exerted on it by itself. Air at our surface must exhibit some temperature difference as it's at a greater pressure then air at 30,000ft.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 27, 2017 21:41:19 GMT
Nautonnier, you say “without radiative gases like CO2 (the atmosphere) could be a lot warmer as N2 and O2 have to become a lot hotter than the radiative gases to start radiating heat away.” Where do you get these ideas? First of all, all gases radiate. Secondly, N2 and O2 radiate at any temperature above absolute zero. Thirdly, as Sigurdur says, H2O(like CO2) is a greenhouse gas and causes the earth and its atmosphere to be warmer than it would otherwise be. How do we quantify, is it necessary to quantify, heat in the atmosphere derived from the pressure exerted on it by itself. Air at our surface must exhibit some temperature difference as it's at a greater pressure then air at 30,000ft. Pressure adds, but is not as important as chemical composition. Upper Strat is hotter than Troposphere. Much less pressure, yet much hotter.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 27, 2017 22:07:05 GMT
Nautonnier, you say “without radiative gases like CO2 (the atmosphere) could be a lot warmer as N2 and O2 have to become a lot hotter than the radiative gases to start radiating heat away.” Where do you get these ideas? First of all, all gases radiate. Secondly, N2 and O2 radiate at any temperature above absolute zero. Thirdly, as Sigurdur says, H2O(like CO2) is a greenhouse gas and causes the earth and its atmosphere to be warmer than it would otherwise be. How do we quantify, is it necessary to quantify, heat in the atmosphere derived from the pressure exerted on it by itself. Air at our surface must exhibit some temperature difference as it's at a greater pressure then air at 30,000ft. Acidohm, before moving on, I want to see if you passed freshman atmospheric science. Have anthropogenic CO2 emissions been a major contributor to the growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the industrial age?
|
|