Re: Met Office Shows No Warming In 15 Years
- From: wiljan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Will Janoschka)
- Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:07:22 -0600
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 00:48:21, Jigme Dorje <jigme.dorje123@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 1/31/2012 4:45 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:37:10, Earl Evleth<evleth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 31/01/12 8:57, in article
DmJ5SKFdRQph-pn2-2eML6zy6X6dw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Will
Janoschka"<wiljan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I firmly dissagree with the
idea that earthlings have any way of changing the warming.
Politically that may be true. I don't believe for a moment
that the Chinese will other than increase their emissions
via coal combustion.
But technically man is able to modify the weather.
Our acts have done so without our planning to do so.
With planned CO2 release we are likely to be able to avoid
the next ice age. Or minimize its extent. Certainly we
would resist a return of the continental ice sheets to
Chicago if we are as technologically advanced as now.
Eventually man will decline, our current exploitation
of nature is not sustainable. We will run out of mineral
deposits, fossil fuels, we will ruin the land with our
misuse of land. We will return a way of living which
will not support the current population, so it will decrease
to a fraction of what it is now. Eventually man will become
extinct and the nitch we currently occupy will be occupied
by other animals. "We" will not be here in several million years.
We will not have traveled to other stars to live a a fiction
writers have invented.
And God will not be present as mankind whimpers to its end.
Show where CO2 has anything to do with it!
For now, best to invest in beachfront property in Canada or Greenland.
The Gods will create a not so nasty replacement for earthlings!
Thank you, Jigme, for a through review of what the political IPCC
spouts. Please let me offer my critique of the spouting line by line.
Disagreement with my opinion is welcome. I try to learn things.
No science at all. No repeatable experiments with the earth
Anthropogenic global warming is based on very solid science. The
discussion in the scientific climate change community is about how much
anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but not about whether or not
anthropogenic global warming is happening at all. Here's a summary of
what anthropomophic global warming is (it's a little lengthy, but I cut
it down into a more easily readable brief.)
atmosphere
at all. We have only one atmosphere and no reference. We have no
way to model the container, (the earths gravitational field), let
alone the
massive effect of global convection currents.
Greenhouse gas in the atmosphere absorbs and emits radiation within the
thermal infrared range, the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.
The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor,
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gases
greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's
surface would be on average about 59 °F colder than it is.
No such thing as greenhouse gas.( a political invention)!
The greenhouse effect is a property of any atmosphere with little
regard to what gas
The greenhouse effect is just that any atmosphere with high sensible
heat will moderate
the extremes of temperature variation between the sun side and the
dark side, this is caused
by conduction and convection currents in the earth atmospherethe ward
The average temperature is another red herring, because radiative
effects are not linear
with temperature but rather proportional to the fourth power of
absolute temperature.
Without an atmosphere the earth surface temperature would swing about
220 kelvin between the bright and dark side with a 24 hr rotational
period.
Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are determined by the
balance between sources (emissions of the gas from human activities and
natural systems) and sinks (the removal of the gas from the atmosphere
by conversion to a different chemical compound). The proportion of an
emission remaining in the atmosphere after a specified time is the
"Airborne fraction" (AF). For CO2, the AF over the last 50 years
(1956â??2006) has been increasing at 0.25 ± 0.21%/year.
Although the earliest data from direct measurement of CO2 in the
atmosphere are from 1958, it is possible to extend the data earlier by
examining air bubbles trapped in ice in Antarctica and Greenland. While
natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than
sources due to human activity, over periods longer than a few years,
natural sources are closely balanced by natural sinks, mainly
photosynthesis of carbon compounds by plants and marine plankton. As a
result of this balance, data on the long-term CO2 trend show that the
CO2 level remained stable around 280 ppm during the last 10,000 years.
the atmospheric mole fraction of carbon dioxide remained between 260 and
280 parts per million for the 10,000 years between the end of the last
glacial maximum and the start of the industrial era. Then CO2 began to
rise around the time of the Industrial Revolution, and is now 38% higher
than pre-industrial levels. Climate scientists attribute the
pre-industrial level of CO2 (280 ppm) to natural causes, and the rise
since then to human activity, primarily due to the aforementioned causes.
Earthlings have indeed cut down lots of trees, but burning the wood
has not been demonstrated to contribute to warming.
All of the increase in atmospheric CO2 can be attributed the the 2
degree
increase in ocean surface temperature. The release of ocean CO2 is
not a
reversable process. Cold water absorbs little CO2 gas.
Since the greenhouse effect is a real effect, it is hard to avoid the
conclusion that the buildup of greenhouse gases will result in an
intensified greenhouse effect, resulting in increased global warming.
No greenhouse gases. your conclusion is similar to a conclusion
that the avalibility of john paper cause earthlings to deficate.
The scientific argument is over not over whether or not it is occurring,
or what causes it, but the amount of increased global warming. Small or
large, it is a real effect. The important scientific question is whether
or not increased global warming will be large enough to cause a problem.
In answer to this question of how important CO2 is in the greenhouse
effect, different gases absorb light of different wavelengths. If you
remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere, the infrared absorption
decreases by 9 percent. If you remove all the greenhouse gases
(including clouds) from the atmosphere except CO2, the absorption
decreases by 74 percent, so the effect of CO2 can be either 9 percent or
26 percent of the greenhouse effect, depending on how it is defined.
Undoubtedly the different definitions account, in part, for the
different values cited in the literature for the importance of CO2 in
the greenhouse effect. But whether it is 9 percent or 26 percent, the
effect of CO2 is not a negligible effect.
Wrong! CO2 and H2O absorb at the same wavelengths but 60 times as
much water in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Measurements have
yet to demonstrate that infrared absorbtion of gasses in the
atmosphere
significantly effect surface temperature.
It is at this point that the calculations become complex. What would be
the result if the greenhouse gases were to double?
So how much global warming will occur? Climate scientists separate the
problem into two parts: climate forcing and climate response.
The forcing includes possible changes in the brightness of the sun, or
changes in the greenhouse effect. The climate response is a resulting
change in the equilibrium temperature. The climate sensitivity is the
change in temperature divided by the climate forcing.
Ok new terms to confuse folk.
A doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial levels is estimated to produce
a temperature rise of about 2.3Ë?F, and this calculation is
straightforward enough that there is little controversy in the
scientific community about it. The greenhouse effect is a real effect,
the burning of fossil fuels leads to increasing concentrations of CO2,
producing an enhanced greenhouse effect.
Before the CO2 level doubles we would have lots of giant ferns that
can tolerate
high CO2 levels. Back to old history where plants control.
I am getting tired, but wish to discuss more so I can learn more!
If you can, please continue the discussion. I do not deny that
the earth is warming. I do not deny that humans have a large
part in that warming. I only deny that any earthling has a clue
as to why it is warming. The whole atmospheric heat transfer
thing has way to many variables to allow understanding.
My friends that study this but cannot publish, a classified thing,
say to me "I donow -Will- wadya think" I reply,
"we are still barking up the wrong tree"
The resulting temperature rise, if you assume that nothing else changes
in the meantime, is only 2.3Ë?F. But this only takes into consideration
the direct atmospheric warming associated with the enhanced greenhouse
effect. It does not take into account any changes in the system, known
as â??feedback.â??
There is no reason to assume that nothing else changes,
all is related and coupled. Hard to study!
more later -will-
If the feedback is positive, then changes in the earth will enhance the
change in temperature, and global warming arising from a doubling of
pre-industrial CO2 will be more than 2.3Ë?. If the feedback is negative,
then changes in the earth will counteract the change in temperature, and
global warming from a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 will be less than
that. If the feedback is positive, then temperature change feeds on
itself. If the feedback is negative, then temperature change will be
self-limiting.
If the feedback is positive, an enhanced greenhouse effect causes a rise
in the average temperature of the earth, which in turn will increase the
power radiated by the earth, (the Stefan-Boltzmann law.) The average
temperature of the earth will rise from the present value to a new,
higher average temperature, â??glowingâ?? more brightly and re-radiating
more energy into space until a new equilibrium is reached. Global
warming is about the shift in the equilibrium temperature, arising from
the enhanced greenhouse effect.
The estimate of the IPCC is that doubling the concentration of CO2 in
the atmosphere will lead to an increase of 2.7 to 8.1Ë?F. The predicted
temperatures consist of 2.3Ë?C from the enhanced greenhouse effect that
is multiplied by an â??amplification factorâ?? arising from positive
feedback. The calculated amplification factor is in the range from 1.2
to 3.75. If the amplification factor is 1.2, then the temperature will
be 20 percent higher than it would be in the absence of feedback, while
if the amplification factor is 3.75, the temperature rise will be nearly
quadruple what it would be in the absence of feedback. The controversy
is all about the feedback. Thatâ??s what the climate scientists are
arguing about: How much is the feedback?
The full complexity of modern climate science arises in attempting to
grapple with the feedback. The number of possible feedbacks is quite
complex. In view of the complexity of the system, it may very well not
be possible to determine from first principles whether the feedback is
positive or negative. However, there are other evidence that support
positive feedback. In analyzing the past temperature record, the
temperature changes are larger than would be expected if there were no
feedback - ice ages and solar variability.
Ice Ages: In the past million years, the earth has undergone ten major
and forty minor episodes of glaciation. The triggers for these events
are believed to be changes in the motion of the earth. Specifically, the
tilt of the axis goes from 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again
every 41,000 years. The month when the earth is closest to the sun
varies in cycles of 19,000 years and 24,000 years. These slow variations
arise from the gravitational forces and torques exerted on the earth by
the other planets, the sun, and the moon. The climate science community
almost unanimously believes that the Milankovitch cycles are the
triggers for the beginning and ending of ice ages, because the timing of
the climate changes agrees so well with the observed orbital changes of
the earth and planets.
Problems arise when attempting to calculate the intensity of the cooling
that results from the changing sunlight. Orbital changes alone appear
not to have caused the vast climate shifts associated with glaciation
and deglaciation. This means that the response of the earth to changing
sunlight may increase the effect - this is evidence for positive feedback.
Solar Variability: Another possible cause of climate change is solar
variability. Since 1979, spacecraft-borne instruments have recorded
variations in the sunâ??s output. The largest short-term dips of 0.3
percent last about a month, associated with sunspots. The eleven-year
sunspot cycle is associated with changes in the sunâ??s output of about
0.1 percent. Since there are no precise measurements of the solar output
before 1979, and no direct measurements before 1900, climate scientists
rely on proxy indicators of solar activity, isotopes in cosmic rays,
carbon-14 and beryllium-10, which are found in tree rings and ice
deposits, respectively. This record stretches back thousands of years.
The sun may make a contribution to climate change in the period before
1800. Lean and Rind believe that in the period 1600â??1800, the
reconstructed solar radiation correlates well with the surface
temperature of the Northern Hemisphere. If you use that period to
compute a climate sensitivity, you get an increase in solar radiation of
0.14% which is too small by a factor of two to account for the observed
temperature rise of 0.28Ë?C, in the absence of positive feedback. If the
modest climate changes in the period 1600â??1800 are attributed to solar
variations, then this is another argument in favor of positive feedback.
However, in the last quarter of the twentieth century, solar changes can
account for less than one third of the observed warming.
The greenhouse effect is after all a real effect, and a large one.
Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect,
which will be a little over 1Ë?C when the CO2 level reaches twice the
pre-industrial levels. There is controversy over the feedback, but an
estimate of the feedback based on the recovery from the last ice age
yields a prediction that doubling the amount of CO2 over pre-industrial
levels will result in a temperature rise of 3Ë?C.
http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming
Some of the forecast effects can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Health
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Met Office Shows No Warming In 15 Years
- From: Jigme Dorje
- Re: Met Office Shows No Warming In 15 Years
- References:
- Re: Met Office Shows No Warming In 15 Years
- From: Jigme Dorje
- Re: Met Office Shows No Warming In 15 Years
- Prev by Date: Re: Met Office Shows No Warming In 15 Years
- Next by Date: Re: The "education crisis" myth
- Previous by thread: Re: Met Office Shows No Warming In 15 Years
- Next by thread: Re: Met Office Shows No Warming In 15 Years
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
