|
Post by hilbert on Mar 3, 2009 14:03:19 GMT
A small point--spectrometry certainly influenced the development of quantum mechanics. In the simple model of the atom, the electrons can only orbit at certain distances, so when they transition to a lower level, the photons that they emit are at particular frequencies, as seen in spectral lines.
This does not take away from your main point.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Mar 3, 2009 14:42:04 GMT
This week we had some relatives staying with us for a few days. He was a recently retired NASA scientist. Very interesting man, and has forgotten more than I will ever know. He liked to argue and discuss, and we certainly talked about the real causes of global warming, or climate change as he much preferred to call it. Without ever actually saying it, I think that he basically ceded that the sun was the overriding factor, and he also said that he accepts that we might be headed into a very long cool period, on account of the condition of the sun.
He still spoke about the need to clean up the environment, and was concerned about carbon, but he did not seem to want to commit that co2 was truly causing global warming.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 3, 2009 18:32:36 GMT
The heat that is wicked away from the surface doesn't disappear, it is still there at the higher levels in the atmosphere, where the increased concentration of CO2 makes it's presence felt with the increased greenhouse effect. CO2 operates at levels in the atmosphere that are far higher than water vapor exists.
Water in the Arctic absorbs 90% of the incident light, and the polar amplification of the ice albedo feedback has already been seen in the past two Octobers due to the large meltbacks of Arctic ice during the summers of 2007 and 2008. Scientists have dipped thermometers in the Arctic ocean IN OCTOBER (when it should have been frozen) and measured temperatures of 3 degrees C, 5 degrees C higher than normal.
Yes, methane oxidizes into CO2 and water vapor, both greenhouse gases. That's one of the reasons methane has a global warming potential 20 times higher than the equivalent amount of CO2.
If what you're saying is true, the Earth would either have frozen solid during the first ice age or the oceans would have boiled away after the first interglacial. Scientists are fairly certain (based on paleoclimatic evidence, which denialists love to dismiss,) that stable climates in between the two conditions exist, and that the one we have been in the past 10,000 years isn't the only one.
However, the disruptions between the stable climates, such as rapidly rising sea levels (5m per century) and the changing precipitation patterns may make it much harder to support 7 to 10 billion people on earth.
Do you have some scientific papers you can show me that demonstrate the feedbacks are already at their maximums? Because both geologic and paleoclimate evidence as well as current measurements indicate they aren't, and that the Earth's climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 4, 2009 13:52:36 GMT
Hi Ken! You write, "The heat that is wicked away from the surface doesn't disappear, it is still there at the higher levels in the atmosphere, where the increased concentration of CO2 makes it's presence felt with the increased greenhouse effect. CO2 operates at levels in the atmosphere that are far higher than water vapor exists." Like a lot of people on this site, I look at the temperatures in the higher levels of the atmosphere nearly daily here: discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/A couple of things for you to explain: 1. How is it that CO2 has transported all of this heat to the upper atmosphere, given that current trends at most levels in the upper atmosphere show cooling over the last 10 years? (You might want to cite a few articles here, since your position runs counter to IPCC predictions and Real Climate predictions and dogma that the greenhouse effect should be most pronounced in the tropical troposphere where there's plenty of H2O.) If you take a glance at the AMSU data, you'll notice that at the highest altitude measured by satellite we are currently at the lowest point temperature-wise. 2. Surely, you'll grant that the oceans are the more significant heat sink when compared to the atmosphere? How would the (non-existent) heat you posit in the upper atmosphere be transferred into the seas to create the scary El Ninos that Al Gore says will become a permanent feature any time now? After explaining these two things, I wonder if you might respond to a last question? Have you ever lived through a real winter, i.e. snow, ice, and dangerous wind chills?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 4, 2009 23:52:52 GMT
Hi Ken! You write, "The heat that is wicked away from the surface doesn't disappear, it is still there at the higher levels in the atmosphere, where the increased concentration of CO2 makes it's presence felt with the increased greenhouse effect. CO2 operates at levels in the atmosphere that are far higher than water vapor exists." Like a lot of people on this site, I look at the temperatures in the higher levels of the atmosphere nearly daily here: discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/A couple of things for you to explain: 1. How is it that CO2 has transported all of this heat to the upper atmosphere, given that current trends at most levels in the upper atmosphere show cooling over the last 10 years? (You might want to cite a few articles here, since your position runs counter to IPCC predictions and Real Climate predictions and dogma that the greenhouse effect should be most pronounced in the tropical troposphere where there's plenty of H2O.) If you take a glance at the AMSU data, you'll notice that at the highest altitude measured by satellite we are currently at the lowest point temperature-wise. 2. Surely, you'll grant that the oceans are the more significant heat sink when compared to the atmosphere? How would the (non-existent) heat you posit in the upper atmosphere be transferred into the seas to create the scary El Ninos that Al Gore says will become a permanent feature any time now? After explaining these two things, I wonder if you might respond to a last question? Have you ever lived through a real winter, i.e. snow, ice, and dangerous wind chills? UAH Middle Troposphere, where it is supposed to be warming faster than the surface, but last year Warmologists claim they didn't really mean that I forgot to plot the CO2 ramp which has a near zero correlation, but it is self-evident.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 5, 2009 4:50:30 GMT
After explaining these two things, I wonder if you might respond to a last question? Have you ever lived through a real winter, i.e. snow, ice, and dangerous wind chills? I really wonder about that myself. These aren't even particularly cold winters and they cause damage. The measures necessary to deal with such conditions greatly increased corrosion of anything made of metal. The conditions are deadly within an hour if you're unprepared...and sometimes even if you are. It's harmful to plants and wildlife...and let's be honest here, it's REALLY inconvenient. After our recent snowfall I was once again reminded of an important and potentially deadly complication of snow and ice storms...power outages. When the power goes out because of ice or snow it often stays out for quite a while. There's no rapid response because the roads are in terrible shape and the power lines are all caked with ice. How does freezing to death in your own home sound? It was beautiful www.poitsplace.com/images/09/mar2009snow-5.jpgbut also dangerous (I live in the southern us where they're usually poorly prepared for winter weather) www.poitsplace.com/images/09/mar2009snow-4.jpg
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Mar 6, 2009 0:08:20 GMT
After explaining these two things, I wonder if you might respond to a last question? Have you ever lived through a real winter, i.e. snow, ice, and dangerous wind chills? I really wonder about that myself. These aren't even particularly cold winters and they cause damage. The measures necessary to deal with such conditions greatly increased corrosion of anything made of metal. The conditions are deadly within an hour if you're unprepared...and sometimes even if you are. It's harmful to plants and wildlife...and let's be honest here, it's REALLY inconvenient. After our recent snowfall I was once again reminded of an important and potentially deadly complication of snow and ice storms...power outages. When the power goes out because of ice or snow it often stays out for quite a while. There's no rapid response because the roads are in terrible shape and the power lines are all caked with ice. How does freezing to death in your own home sound? It was beautiful www.poitsplace.com/images/09/mar2009snow-5.jpgbut also dangerous (I live in the southern us where they're usually poorly prepared for winter weather) www.poitsplace.com/images/09/mar2009snow-4.jpgI am forecasting a global cooling trend for the world in the decades ahead ~ 2020s and 2030s. We should see the first serious drop in global temperature in the year 2017, with increasingly worrisome signs of more to come. This is why it is essential to prepare the world for global cooling, which can deliver even more powerful storms that those of a global warming cycle.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 6, 2009 0:40:11 GMT
I think you may be right - just by looking at the weather patterns.
I also think that you may be wrong - the world could be on the slippery slope to really cold already. Just at the time when the politicians are closing down all the coal fired power stations. It would be nice to think that they or the climatologists would take responsibility. But we are already seeing from NASA the mantra - "It may get cold for a few decades but it will be really really warm after that!" Another totally unfalsifiable hypothesis.
I am beginning to think that the real art of the climatologist is nothing to do with correct forecasting but in the creation of unfalsifiable hypotheses.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Mar 7, 2009 0:45:59 GMT
1. How is it that CO2 has transported all of this heat to the upper atmosphere, given that current trends at most levels in the upper atmosphere show cooling over the last 10 years? (You might want to cite a few articles here, since your position runs counter to IPCC predictions and Real Climate predictions and dogma that the greenhouse effect should be most pronounced in the tropical troposphere where there's plenty of H2O.) If you take a glance at the AMSU data, you'll notice that at the highest altitude measured by satellite we are currently at the lowest point temperature-wise. Uh, that's predicted by "CO2 causes global warming". The physics is simple -- increased CO2 at lower altitudes prevents long wave radiation from escaping to higher altitudes. Those higher altitudes have less outbound long wave radiation to absorb, so the higher altitudes cool since they are only receiving inbound long wave radiation and less outbound long wave radiation.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Mar 7, 2009 3:06:13 GMT
I think you may be right - just by looking at the weather patterns. I also think that you may be wrong - the world could be on the slippery slope to really cold already. Just at the time when the politicians are closing down all the coal fired power stations. It would be nice to think that they or the climatologists would take responsibility. But we are already seeing from NASA the mantra - "It may get cold for a few decades but it will be really really warm after that!" Another totally unfalsifiable hypothesis. I am beginning to think that the real art of the climatologist is nothing to do with correct forecasting but in the creation of unfalsifiable hypotheses. The art and science of astrometeorology is quite accurate. You have to understand that in order to forecast climate conditions in the long-range that this must be done astronomically. There is no other way. All climate and weather begins first in space. It is here where we can forecast applying the astrometeorological rule of astrophysical to geophysical ~ cause to effect. This is a physical law of our solar system. Conventional climatology and meteorology is much too concerned with the short-range, and this is based mainly on conventional computer models, which have a hard enough time forecasting in the short to medium ranges, much less longer-range. This is because their models do not include astronomical solutions. According to my own calculations, we are entering the last phase of global warming from mid-2009 to mid-2016. Throughout that time span we will continue to see increasing signs of a colder climate, but this will not build up powerfully until about the year 2017, when the atmosphere of the Earth truly starts its march towards a colder climate in the 2020s, and peaking during the 2030s. Therefore is time to prepare for this colder climate, but all the arguing over "man-made global warming" (a myth) and the immense waste of resources over this myth does not help to prepare in the slightest for the coming global cooling in the decades ahead.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Mar 17, 2009 13:29:56 GMT
This week we had some relatives staying with us for a few days. He was a recently retired NASA scientist. Very interesting man, and has forgotten more than I will ever know. He liked to argue and discuss, and we certainly talked about the real causes of global warming, or climate change as he much preferred to call it. Without ever actually saying it, I think that he basically ceded that the sun was the overriding factor, and he also said that he accepts that we might be headed into a very long cool period, on account of the condition of the sun. He still spoke about the need to clean up the environment, and was concerned about carbon, but he did not seem to want to commit that co2 was truly causing global warming. I agree with him. Most scientists who have studied climate change and who do not allow themselves to be co-opted by "peer group pressure" and politics have the same viewpoints ~ they care deeply about the environment, but do not assign the cause of global warming to humanity.
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Mar 18, 2009 5:07:32 GMT
I think what we have here is a failure to understand. On one side of the global warming argument is that mankind and his pollution is inconsequential to Earth’s climate fluctuations because the shear amount of energy hitting Earth and its atmosphere from the sun dwarfs mankind’s energy consumption. (one hour’s worth of energy hitting Earth from the Sun equals the amount of energy consumed by mankind in a year) On the other side of the global warming argument is that mankind and his pollution are causing global warming and the sun has next to nothing to do with it. So here is the $64,000 question: IF THE SUN HAS LITTLE TO NO EFFECT ON EARTH’S CLIMATE, THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO EARTH’S CLIMATE IF THE SUN DIED OUT AT NOON TOMORROW?
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Mar 18, 2009 6:41:00 GMT
[vertrimmt] Water in the Arctic absorbs 90% of the incident light...Ocean albedo is very sensitive to zenith angle. Albedo values as high as 0.8 for Arctic open water are reported, and the reflectance of still water is 1.0, which corresponds to 0% absorption, not 90%. Ice albedos, on the other hand, can be as low as 79%, +/- 4%, depending on the ice surface and zenith angle. Ice surfaces can also be ridged or flat or covered by snow or crystalline structures, giving winter albedos that may lie below 0.6. (Zenith angles ~70°) Scientists have dipped thermometers in the Arctic ocean IN OCTOBER (when it should have been frozen) and measured temperatures of 3 degrees C, 5 degrees C higher than normal. October is not winter in the NH, and the Arctic Ocean always has open water in October. Your factoid is only anecdotal and may possibly be nothing better than cherry-picking. Where did they stick their thermometers? How far from land? What time of day? Who did it? What year? Were they real scientists or railroad engineers and movie stars? Was the report pee-er reviewed? (Ignore that last; I don't give a poop. Peer review has become a joke.)
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Mar 19, 2009 10:26:17 GMT
There is a good roundup of relevant papers that attribute the majority of last Century warming to various Solar influences :- www.co2science.org/subject/s/summaries/solarirradiance.phpFrom the state of the Sun over the past 2 years or so it seems more likely than not that we are already on the downward slope and if C24 does not exceed Leif's 70 or so Ssn there may not be much of an upward trend for C24 max in temperatures. I hope I am wrong, as I don't look forward to cutting increasing amounts of firewood in my ninth decade and beyond ;D
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 19, 2009 13:07:59 GMT
There is a good roundup of relevant papers that attribute the majority of last Century warming to various Solar influences :- www.co2science.org/subject/s/summaries/solarirradiance.phpFrom the state of the Sun over the past 2 years or so it seems more likely than not that we are already on the downward slope and if C24 does not exceed Leif's 70 or so Ssn there may not be much of an upward trend for C24 max in temperatures. I hope I am wrong, as I don't look forward to cutting increasing amounts of firewood in my ninth decade and beyond ;D Thats the true shame of all this. Something negative might have to happen to prove the alarmists wrong and for the lemmings to not run off the cliff. Recalling the MWP it is known as the Renaissance. Hopefully 30 years of level temperatures will calm folks down. . . .yeah right!
|
|