|
|
Post by glc on Oct 12, 2009 11:59:03 GMT
Speaking for myself, not glc, I've been "going on" about the fact that reports of any warm period in any location during 900-1400 is often ascribed to "the MWP". That is a 500 year period! It is quite easy to find cold periods during this 500 year period. But noone seems interested in those. So I'm asking for the evidence to be compared in a reasonably equal way. And if you don't accept the evidence, don't fall back on a few anecdotes about Vikings in Greenland, or the MWP plot of uncertain provenance that appeared in the first IPCC report.
That is broadly speaking my position. It's a similar situation with the LIA except in reverse. It was certainly cold in some regions but there were also warm periods. There does not appear to be a simultaneous warm or cold period on a global scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 12, 2009 14:56:03 GMT
I did a rough dirty calculation of the energy per m2 from the conversion of fuel and it comes out at approximately 1 watt/m2. Does somebody want to check that? World energy use is under 20 terawatts (20e+12) Area of the world (4*3.14*6370000*6370000) is 500 *1e12 metres sqared. So that is about 0.03W/m^2. I agree that human energy use is likely to be trivial compared to the sun. However people were talking about human energy use in urban areas where thermometers are used to create earth temperatures. That is probably not a trivial amount. More interesting to me though is the observation that there is more radiation returned to the earths surface from water even on clear nights in Antarctica than any other substance in the atmosphere and there is almost no water in the entire atmosphere above antarctica on clear nights. Since water is often present in relatively huge quantities in the atmosphere where it is warmer and often present in humid cities where you get the extra none trivial warming from strongly emitting man made ground surfaces and structures *and* you get the additional presumably none trivial extra man made heating via energy use, UHI has to be a real thing to be considered At the end of the day, time and time again C02 as a major factor in terrestial warming seems very unlikely to me. Another thing i am looking into which John Tyndall remarked upon in 1870, is that the earth is usually cooling at night with a water layer on the ground and the earth cools via that water layer that emitts water based emission to the atmosphere which is in turn absorbed almost entirely by water in the atmosphere prior to readmission and warming of the night air, so that it is warmer than it would be without this influence. importantly the earth is in intimate conductive contact with water so the warm earth is warming one side of layer of water that cools via water IR emission to the watery atmoshere above. So there is much less black body emission than might be obvious and even less reason to think C02 is much of a factor. If Tyndalls reasoning is correct then more or less water alone is the main factor in the earths additional warmth from the absense of us having a sky temperature of absolute zero into which the earth can cool. Anyway you view it, if Nightcooling to outerspace is principally inhibited by water even in areas of extremely low water in the entire atmosphere above the surface that is cooling, C02 is not a big factor in warming the earth below. The more i look at this topic, the more i see ignorance of what was at one time well known. All this nonesense to erase warm or cold periods in our own recorded history is part of that ignorance. As it happens it was under -6 here in Southern Finland last night and it is snowing now but has warmed to 0.1 by my measurement. If we are at 0.1 then when i see 0.0 then i should see ice on my balcony railing. Fairly unusual when the trees have not shed their leaves i am told by my Finnish wife. Of course some idiot is going to say this is just an anecdote Apparently human records are just anecdotes to the new idiot science |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 12, 2009 15:03:56 GMT
My position has always been that the hydrologic cycle has been poorly quantified and has far more to do with the climate than other trace gases. It also has both negative and positive feedbacks and their effects are hugely more powerful than CO2 scattering of IR. What has to be shown is that any perturbation due to anthropogenic emissions is more powerful than the negative feedbacks from the hydrologic cycle. So far the positions are:
There is no negative feedback from water vapor, or
It has no effect - and it is included it in the models (none of which are within their error bounds) or,
We have included it in the models but we need to do more work to get it right
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 12, 2009 15:21:39 GMT
My position has always been that the hydrologic cycle has been poorly quantified and has far more to do with the climate than other trace gases. It also has both negative and positive feedbacks and their effects are hugely more powerful than CO 2 scattering of IR. What has to be shown is that any perturbation due to anthropogenic emissions is more powerful than the negative feedbacks from the hydrologic cycle. The belief in a hydrological cycle that tends towards some particular temperature and a belief in very long term warming and cooling cycles could be considered conflicting. I shall have to ask my mum what she thinks in view of her long memories of Yorkshire weather. |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 12, 2009 15:29:47 GMT
My position has always been that the hydrologic cycle has been poorly quantified and has far more to do with the climate than other trace gases. It also has both negative and positive feedbacks and their effects are hugely more powerful than CO 2 scattering of IR. What has to be shown is that any perturbation due to anthropogenic emissions is more powerful than the negative feedbacks from the hydrologic cycle. So far the positions are: There is no negative feedback from water vapor, or It has no effect - and it is included it in the models (none of which are within their error bounds) or, We have included it in the models but we need to do more work to get it right John Tyndall who was a celibrated observer of our world remarked that dry air without C02 was by his most careful observation like a vacuum in its ability to absorb terrestial radiation. And from that we know that it cannot by his measurement cool down either once warmed. It is a very peculiar observation. Of all of the substances he measured he found water was the most powerful absorber of the earths heat. Water vapour, a light gas, comes very easily into warm dry air and then it obliges this mixture to rise to great heights in the atmosphere where the mixture cools and water no longer wants to be in the air and descends with the heavier drier air to the surface An incredible system. Is that in the models? If so why do people like Steve want to tell us that convective processes to circulate air are relatively unimportant? And i will say it again, if water is the principal radiating component in the atmosphere above antarctica and there is almost no water in the atmosphere above antarctica how can it possibly be in the models that C02 is a big factor in warming the earth?? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 12, 2009 15:54:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 12, 2009 16:13:01 GMT
The belief in a hydrological cycle that tends towards some particular temperature and a belief in very long term warming and cooling cycles could be considered conflicting. I shall have to ask my mum what she thinks in view of her long memories of Yorkshire weather. I would guess that many Yorkshire women are able to understand the simple principals involved here. If the seas warm they will result in atmospheric forces that will dump a stupendous amount of snow upon areas of the world that presently have more or less no water in the entire atmosphere above those points of the earths surface so that for example in Antarctica and northern Greenland it does not snow much - it just almost never melts from the surface either. The heat content of the lighter atmosphere is trivial compared to the heat content of the oceans enormous mass Therefore it makes no sense to argue against water based climate changes and circulations involving multi decade or even multi century changes. Part of the problem with todays science is the emphasis on assembling complex logical truths which almost certainly involve incorrect assumptions. And if more heat is radiated from water than all other factors combined where there is almost no water in the atmosphere obviously there are some incorrect assumptions. I think most people can understand such simple ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 12, 2009 16:20:19 GMT
My position has always been that the hydrologic cycle has been poorly quantified and has far more to do with the climate than other trace gases. It also has both negative and positive feedbacks and their effects are hugely more powerful than CO 2 scattering of IR. What has to be shown is that any perturbation due to anthropogenic emissions is more powerful than the negative feedbacks from the hydrologic cycle. The belief in a hydrological cycle that tends towards some particular temperature and a belief in very long term warming and cooling cycles could be considered conflicting. I shall have to ask my mum what she thinks in view of her long memories of Yorkshire weather. OK I my post should then read: My position has always been that the hydrologic cycle has been poorly quantified and has far more to do with the climate than other trace gases. It also has both negative and positive feedbacks and their effects are hugely more powerful than CO2 scattering of IR. What has to be shown is that any perturbation due to anthropogenic emissions is more powerful than the negative feedbacks from the hydrologic cycle. So far the positions are:
There is no negative feedback from water vapor, or
It has no effect - and it is included it in the models (none of which are within their error bounds) or,
We have included it in the models but we need to do more work to get it right or We will have to ask our mothers. Strange because in the IPCC report they accept they do not model clouds correctly and the WRF model is being heavily reworked to better model the hyrdologic cycle - and all this time a trip to Yorkshire and it would all be settled by Steve's mum.  |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 12, 2009 16:38:54 GMT
You were totally unable to grasp the principals behind the adiabatic lapse rate which involves a parcel of air expanding with momentum and iertia into the surrounding air, and therefore little mixing, while it ascends upward into the atmosphere. Again and again you used the word adiabatic when you should have just used lapse rate. Again and again you wanted to deny the phenonema was possible to exist or wanted to minimise its importance Apparently your own theories were more important than anything else anybody had ever measured and witnessed before. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 12, 2009 16:39:18 GMT
Understanding simple ideas is one thing. Thinking they make any sort of coherent sense, or are based on any sort of reality is quite another.
|
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 12, 2009 17:11:05 GMT
Understanding simple ideas is one thing. Thinking they make any sort of coherent sense, or are based on any sort of reality is quite another. Amazing. On a physics board i witnessed a man who obviously knew about basic atmospheric and celistial principals attacked in a horrible manner simply because he explained some simple principals that a crowd of ignorant bigots could not believe . All he explained was that the persians used to make ice when it was not freezing because space is cold, and that the dark side of the moon is always dark. And now a person can learn from experiments that expand upon ancient Persian knowledge that when there is almost no water in the dry atmosphere, water still contributes more to the skys downwards IR radiation than all other substances combined and yet still this person is unable to learn and allow the simple truth to exist. Today it seems as if the scientific method is too complicated to work with and instead we just get to hear some fools opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 12, 2009 17:14:12 GMT
You were totally unable to grasp the principals behind the adiabatic lapse rate which involves a parcel of air expanding with momentum and iertia into the surrounding air, and therefore little mixing, while it ascends upward into the atmosphere. Again and again you used the word adiabatic when you should have just used lapse rate. Again and again you wanted to deny the phenonema was possible to exist or wanted to minimise its importance Apparently your own theories were more important than anything else anybody had ever measured and witnessed before. You often misread my sentences (even when I am agreeing with you) and this was no exception. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=851&page=2#31762 |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 12, 2009 18:23:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 12, 2009 18:47:58 GMT
Of course, because the complex interaction between the water cycle and CO2's supposed forcing would be TOO complex to model (especially since they don't even understand it) they use parametrization to deal with it. This makes it MUCH easier to model...at the cost of making the results a useless load of crap that has nothing to do with reality. |
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Oct 12, 2009 21:09:51 GMT
I believe the AGW-Istas should declare what is a normal anomaly of average temperature.
And then say if we are within this normal "corridor" or not.
Then they have to explain why they cant see the MWP or LIA in their science.
I don't buy this that it have not been the same trend all over the world before.
It is a fact that the ice age in NH disappeared during the same time the ice grow on Kilimanjaro. How would the AGW-Istas explain that. Too low CO2?
Take a reality check and get back and explain why Sahara became a desert 6000 year ago, The ice age ended 12000 year ago and tropical glaciers started to grow 11.000 year ago.
Then explain for me why the bottom of glaciers on Svalbard is only 800 year old. Why there is remains of tree and butterflies on the bottom of Greenland ice with an age of 125 000 year.
This is the problem because if it is CO2 will you prove it wrong because the CO2 have been fairly stable. So it must something else which AGW-Istas cant explain.
|
|
