Green World Trust Forum Index Green World Trust
No greenwash here. Just truths as we find them, open to discussion and change
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

CO2 today and the little ice age
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Green World Trust Forum Index -> Global Coffee House - General Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jorgekafkazar



Joined: 26 Jan 2009
Posts: 14
Location: California

PostPosted: 22 Apr 2009 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pajaholic wrote:
jorgekafkazar wrote:
The feedback is implicit in the models, based on minuscule optical density increases in the tiny portion of the absorption line of the CO˛ spectrum that is not covered by the adjacent/overlapping, broad H˛O absorption bands.

If I've read you correctly, the feedback is assumed and forms an input parameter or data set of the models?

While I'd appreciate a response to the above, I'm more interested in your apparent understanding of the alleged mechanism of that feedback. Can you expand a little on this? p/.

The feedback is implicit in the models, though there probably is an actual calculation step. The putative mechanism is: CO˛ intercepts a little more energy from the Earth's surface, keeping the surface a tiny bit warmer. That warmth causes more water to evaporate, which also is a greenhouse gas, thus adding a bit more warmth, and so on.

Because the energy transfer is logarithmic with GHG concentration, each successive increase in warmth only adds a tiny bit more energy interception. There is an infinite series for this process which is easy to sum and is fully covered in Warmist literature.

The problem with this is (1) the tropical, upper troposphere hot spot that this process should create has never been seen; (2) the models don't handle convection and precipitation adequately; (3) the models neglect full microclimatic effects; (4) the spectral physics is not as cut-and-dried as Warmists represent.

For example, heating a desert area is not going to put more water vapor in the air. The heating of wet areas where it might, particularly the ocean, involves nasty, hard to correlate processes as in (2) above.

Another issue is climate variability, now a part of Warmist holy doctrine. The temperature spread will increase, they say, including (I couldn't make this up!) more incidence of low temperatures. It's ludicrous, especially when you consider that increased variability involves higher temperature excursions that will then shed heat by T^4, resulting in, effectively, an offset average T of as much as minus 0.5°C.

The entire system is poorly understood, but it's clear to me, at least, that the Earth has not just one mechanism for keeping temperatures stable, but many. Pity the Warmists don't have something similar that would prevent Messiah Complexes.
_________________
nov shmoz ka pop?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jorgekafkazar



Joined: 26 Jan 2009
Posts: 14
Location: California

PostPosted: 23 Apr 2009 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richard111 wrote:
jorgekafkazar wrote:
I've built math models of complex systems, and I can get any result I want by various forms of jiggery-pokery. The models are best described semi-mathematically: [a˛ + b˛ = r˛] & [dsł/dtł].


It's at least 55 years since I last dealt with equations like that.... Very Happy

The first expression, of course, is the equation for a circle. The second expression is suddenness of onset of acceleration, also known as "jerk."
_________________
nov shmoz ka pop?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Richard111
Experienced User


Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433

PostPosted: 23 Apr 2009 06:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jorgekafkazar wrote:

The first expression, of course, is the equation for a circle. The second expression is suddenness of onset of acceleration, also known as "jerk."


Thanks for the reminder. (I think) Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pajaholic



Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 39
Location: Cornwall, UK

PostPosted: 23 Apr 2009 07:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richard111 wrote:
jorgekafkazar wrote:

The first expression, of course, is the equation for a circle. The second expression is suddenness of onset of acceleration, also known as "jerk."


Thanks for the reminder. (I think) Confused

FWIW, I recognised both and had a chuckle at the evoked mental image of jerks running around in circles!

jorgekafkazar: thanks also for the info in the other post.

p/.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sunsettommy



Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Posts: 22

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2009 02:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
CO2 concentration change lags temperature change by an average of approx 800 years, but in reality this can be anything from a few hundred years to a millenium or so.


That is the current range.However future research may reduce that time lag considerably.This was from ICE CORES.

Today we have a 6-9 month lag.This is from sampling the atmosphere with esoteric equipment.

Different material and methods were used.What explanation do we have for large differences?

If you go further back and see how little atmospheric CO2 changed while the last ice age went to an end and then had that huge cool down during the Younger Dryas time.

That is where you can shower the AGW believers with.To show little CO2 could possibly have changed the air temperature.That has been at least 20 degrees increase.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Derek
Experienced User


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.

PostPosted: 11 Jun 2009 09:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pajaholic wrote:
I originally asked for an assessment of my logic. However, something else has come to my notice that has appalled me because if true it means that the warmist theories are based on a flaw induced by one of the most fundamental errors of logic - and so it's their logic that needs checking, not mine!


Certainly it's not your logic that needs checking. Wink

Here is an excellant paper prepared for the 2nd Heartland Conference by William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus, Dept of Atmospheric Science,
Colorado State University.
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/24891.pdf
- Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean
not Human Activity



I think it will be of great interest to you. Particularly where he explains James Hansen's 1988 exploits.
Here is a plot of what the models model as how AGW warming occurs, as Dr gray explains in the above paper..



And, errr, here is what Lord Monckton plotted as the actual observed pattern of warming..



Oh, and here's the water relative humidity that Ken Gregory plotted for data over the last few decades during
ever rising CO2 levels (for whatever reason..) in the upper troposphere..





NB - Methane is a myth as well..


and the reason for all this, pictorially has probably been best "cartooned" by Jo Nova
in her skeptics handbook, namely,





Which is possibly why discussing or showing an interest in climate science feels a bit like this...



If only this was not true,


Then all our cooking energy needs would be for free, care of Jim Peden's oven...



ROFLMAO.

Personnally I am waiting for explanations more along this sort of line..



Sorry, I couldn't be bothered typing tonight.. Wink
_________________

An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard111
Experienced User


Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433

PostPosted: 16 Jun 2009 07:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Sorry, I couldn't be bothered typing tonight..


HAH!

Pop over to Climate Audit and read about how AGW is causing wind speeds to decrease and reduce performance of wind farms. I kid you not!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Derek
Experienced User


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.

PostPosted: 16 Jun 2009 07:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

I think the jist you have given is enough...
Thank you, I needed a lift.

Then by accident I came across these beauties..........
As Richard111 mentions,
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2009321621_apusscidiminishingwinds.html
- Not so windy: Research suggests winds dying down
Excerpt,
The wind, a favorite power source of the green energy movement, seems to be dying down across the United States.
And the cause, ironically, may be global warming - the very problem wind power seeks to address.


But then I also came across,
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/06/global_warming_may_spread_plan.html
- Global warming may spread plant seeds faster and farther
Excerpt,
" A team headed by a Finnish researcher concludes that stronger winds caused by global warming
may be dispersing seeds and pollen over longer distances. An increase in temperature of only a couple of degrees
may increase the dispersal of plants in Northern forests and
the spread of plant species into forest clearings after logging or forest fires.
"

ROFLMAO........
_________________

An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
adb



Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 5

PostPosted: 10 Sep 2009 06:51 am    Post subject: Re: CO2 today and the little ice age Reply with quote

Pajaholic wrote:
I'd appreciate a reality check please:


The following graph says it all. Man's fossil fuel burning increased 120% after 1945 ... but the rate of warming decreased !!!



Note
The error band is that claimed by the IPCC.
Data is from IPCC/Hadley Centre/UK Met Office ... hadcrut3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Armand65



Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 3

PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 09:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because of the attempts of certain scientists and politicians to convince the nations of the world that current temperatures are the greatest they have been over the prior one to two millennia, plus their claim that earth's present warmth is the result of the increase in the air's CO2 content that was driven by the burning of fossil fuels associated with the birth and progress of the Industrial Revolution, as well as the ever-growing human population of the planet, we continually review scientific journal articles that describe the worldwide existence of the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago, as well as the Little Ice Age, demonstrating thereby that there is nothing unusual or "CO2-induced" about the Current Warm Period. Quite to the contrary, we propose it is merely the most recent occurrence of the warm node of a millennial-scale climatic oscillation that has reverberated throughout glacial and interglacial periods alike, as described in our Subject Index under the general heading of Climate Oscillations (Millennial Variability). As another part of this endeavor, we also list and discuss -- under the general heading of Little Ice Age in our Subject Index -- numerous scientific papers that document the existence of this several-century cool phase of the millennial-scale oscillation of climate that held sway over the planet during much of the time between the Medieval and Current Warm Periods; and in this Summary we describe the results of those studies that document the existence of the Little Ice Age over the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
perseus
Experienced User


Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 101

PostPosted: 24 Nov 2011 03:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that
fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

"It's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth
doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because
something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but
the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the
20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic
radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide.

It would also be a remarkable coincidence that global temperature
have suddenly started to increase just as we have rapidly
increased greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

[/img]
_________________
change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming. “Target 1: Older, less educated males”..... The Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute (ICE) 1991
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
perseus
Experienced User


Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 101

PostPosted: 24 Nov 2011 03:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

perseus wrote:
A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no
known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed
warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

"It's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth
doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because
something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but
the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the
20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic
radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide.

It would also be a remarkable coincidence that global temperatures
have suddenly started to increase for some other reason just as we
have rapidly increased greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. There
are other forcings of course but greenhouses gases is the main
one.
[/img]

_________________
change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming. “Target 1: Older, less educated males”..... The Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute (ICE) 1991
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Green World Trust Forum Index -> Global Coffee House - General Chat All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group