|
Post by gettingchilly on Mar 25, 2009 23:45:28 GMT
"Greenhouse gases currently contribute 2.6 watts/meter squared of forcing, or 10 times the amount of the sun."
Wow, I could use some of this in my CO2 based perpetual motion engine as I'm currently losing 90% of what I put in. But with this amazing forcing I could make it work and have energy to spare which I could sell and we could shut down all the coal fired power stations and I would be rich beyond belief. I could buy 50 SUV's and fifty gorgeous naked women to drive them
Wake up, Wake up!
You were dreaming and you will wake up the kids! Go to sleep and stop talking about your pregnant doges.
SLAP!
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Mar 25, 2009 23:51:40 GMT
Pregnant doges.. Or the ex that ruined your life.
Don't you (have issue with) automated moderating influences.
I program this stuff for a living.. shhot me.
Thlank Fluck I Hlave a llisp!
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Mar 26, 2009 0:21:55 GMT
kenfeldman writes "Why would anyone keep looking for another cause when all of this evidence is staring them in the face? "
Thanks, Ken. If everything you said were true, I would agree with you. But life is too short to discuss such things in the detail required.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 27, 2009 16:31:14 GMT
The idea that oceans are warmed by re-emitted IR is complete nonsense. One must ascribe to perpetual motion to believe such drivel. As has been stated ad nauseum, it is only increased short wave solar radiation reaching the oceans that can account for the last several years of OHC rising, whether by TSI, deceased cloud cover etc. The more evidence that comes available, the less credibility the CO2 AGW hypothesis holds. Herewith: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/dust-study-suggests-only-30-of-atlantic-temp-increase-due-to-warming-climate/#comments“This makes sense, because we don’t really expect global warming to make the ocean [temperature] increase that fast,” he says. Why is that so difficult to understand?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 27, 2009 17:31:48 GMT
The idea that oceans are warmed by re-emitted IR is complete nonsense. One must ascribe to perpetual motion to believe such drivel. As has been stated ad nauseum, it is only increased short wave solar radiation reaching the oceans that can account for the last several years of OHC rising, whether by TSI, deceased cloud cover etc. Not at all, if you reduce the rate of heat loss from the ocean (by warming the atmosphere above it - by increasing greenhouse gases) then the ocean will get warmer.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 27, 2009 17:56:52 GMT
The idea that oceans are warmed by re-emitted IR is complete nonsense. One must ascribe to perpetual motion to believe such drivel. As has been stated ad nauseum, it is only increased short wave solar radiation reaching the oceans that can account for the last several years of OHC rising, whether by TSI, deceased cloud cover etc. Not at all, if you reduce the rate of heat loss from the ocean (by warming the atmosphere above it - by increasing greenhouse gases) then the ocean will get warmer. PROVE IT.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 27, 2009 18:50:16 GMT
Everyone acknowledges that the sun, which on average produces 1,365 watts per meter squared, drives the climate. It's just that that last 1.5 watts/meter squared difference between solar min and solar max can't explain the current warming, while the increase in greenhouse gases does. The 1.5 watts/meter squared actually becomes 0.26 watts/meter squared when you factor in albedo (30% so multiply by 0.7) and spread it over the surface of the earth (divide by 4). Greenhouse gases currently contribute 2.6 watts/meter squared of forcing, or 10 times the amount of the sun. You are only looking at solar min to solar max, and ignoring the overall changes from weak cycles to strong cycles. Every cycle since the 1970s has been considerably stronger than the historical average. You think that is meaningless?
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 27, 2009 18:55:34 GMT
Probably because in all of the attempts to find another cause (cosmic rays, UV effects in the stratosphere, etc...) they haven't found one that correlates the changes from the sun to the changes in the climate. That and the fact that the changes in the climate can be clearly shown to be caused by the changes in forcings from TSI, greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic pollutants and volcanic forcings using the proven principles of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics make AGW the leading candidate for explaining the changes that have been very well documented. These changes include not just the surface temperature rise, but also the sea level rise, melting glaciers, loss of mass from Greenland and Antarctica, change in biological ranges for species, expansion of the Hadley cells, cooling of the stratosphere, and many other effects predicted by AGW but not by solar or other theories. Why would anyone keep looking for another cause when all of this evidence is staring them in the face? The problem, Ken, is that many of the "changes" you list have not been accurately documented for very long. And when you look at the fact that over the past 10+ years there has been very little increase in surface temperature, glaciers are showing signs of recovery all over the world, etc, one has to wonder how much of these "signs of AGW" you point to were actually due to CO2, or how many might actually be largely a part of natural fluctuation. There also is no accurate longterm record of things like stratospheric temps and sea level, so I think it is dangerous to jump to conclusions over data from too short a time frame...don't you?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 27, 2009 19:47:13 GMT
Not at all, if you reduce the rate of heat loss from the ocean (by warming the atmosphere above it - by increasing greenhouse gases) then the ocean will get warmer. PROVE IT. The oceans don't absorb enough sunlight to keep them above freezing. If heat loss wasn't reduced by IR absorption in the atmosphere the oceans would be covered in ice.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Mar 30, 2009 13:06:01 GMT
gee Socold so you are saying radiant heat is less powerful than atmospheric heat
ROFL
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 30, 2009 23:04:08 GMT
No I am saying with IR absorption in the atmosphere the atmosphere and surface would be too cool to support a liquid ocean.
If the ocean temp is about 15C on average today, what's it going to look like it if was -18C on average? Perhaps a bit of liquid at the tropics. More likely snowball earth.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 31, 2009 1:33:29 GMT
No I am saying with IR absorption in the atmosphere the atmosphere and surface would be too cool to support a liquid ocean. If the ocean temp is about 15C on average today, what's it going to look like it if was -18C on average? Perhaps a bit of liquid at the tropics. More likely snowball earth. To be a good IR emitter you have to be a good IR absorber so you are probably right. But you still have not explained why at the same latitude at noon on a clear day why tropical climates tend to be cooler than desert climates after starting out at dawn a lot warmer.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 31, 2009 2:15:47 GMT
icefisher writes: But you still have not explained why at the same latitude at noon on a clear day why tropical climates tend to be cooler than desert climates after starting out at dawn a lot warmer.
I'm guessing that goes back to the humidity issue. Water is being evaporated which requires alot of heat to change phase without changing temperature, and then more heat to rise in temperature.
In the desert, lacking said humidity, and being of the plush brown color that just loves to absorb heat without changing phase, (though it certainly feels like the sand is about to melt and turn into glass) it makes it much easier to transfer the incoming energy to the atmosphere. Fortunately it's cooler at night and a 30-40 degree temperature differential is not unusual.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 1, 2009 15:58:48 GMT
The idea that oceans are warmed by re-emitted IR is complete nonsense. One must ascribe to perpetual motion to believe such drivel. As has been stated ad nauseum, it is only increased short wave solar radiation reaching the oceans that can account for the last several years of OHC rising, whether by TSI, deceased cloud cover etc. Not at all, if you reduce the rate of heat loss from the ocean (by warming the atmosphere above it - by increasing greenhouse gases) then the ocean will get warmer. So let's go through this slowly. The oceans are continually cooling due to evaporation of water from the surface, you can see oceans steaming all over the world from the poles to the tropics. This evaporation increases whenever the oceans are warmer and when the vapor pressure of water vapor allows it. Water vapor is hugely more effective as a 'green house gas' (sic) than CO 2. In theory with the huge amounts of water vapor entering the atmosphere and warming it by taking heat from the surface, there should be a runaway effect. But water vapor also provides feedbacks such as convection of the energy to the tropopause, with cloud formation raising the albedo, and cold precipitation returning 'empty' to cool the ocean again. AGW does not like negative feedbacks and fails to model them correctly. But they must be there or the Earth would have boiled dry already. I would hypothesize that these negative feedbacks that arise when the ocean ( or atmosphere) begins to approach a particular temperature are so significant that they can override the minor effect of CO 2. This appears to be supported by references on the subject of measures of hugely negative forcing by convective clouds in the tropics.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 2, 2009 4:39:02 GMT
|
|