Global Warming UNDENIABLE SOLID PROOF

[x-y-no]

Isn't the old and now discredited "hockey stick" graph an implicit claim of monotonic warming?

No, it's not discredited, and no, it's not a claim of monotonic warming.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Isn't the old and now discredited "hockey stick" graph an implicit claim of monotonic warming?

No, it's not discredited, and no, it's not a claim of monotonic warming.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

[x-y-no]

Isn't the old and now discredited "hockey stick" graph an implicit claim of monotonic warming?

No, it's not discredited, and no, it's not a claim of monotonic warming.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Well, OK, but I don't see how a historical graph can be a prediction of anything, nor is it true that historical graph says anything about interannual variation, given that it's a smoothed graph of the very long-term trend.

[gigabite]

http://home.att.net/~gigabite/DRIFT.gif
Radiative heat transfer is inversely related to distance

OK ... that's a change of 0.021%. Do you really think that accounts for any measurable change in the Earth's temperature?

I am not sure what you are proportioning or the units you are using. I have it as at a .03 degree C short fall in of incoming heat just in winter in 2008/2009 climbing to a .125 degree C shortfall by winter 2011/2012 assuming no output change in the Sun. The cooler sunspots are not forming yet. That is just a snapshot at one day. If you look at seasonally the heat loss is far greater in the spring and summer months for the next 10 or so years, but the heat loss is computed daily with out an albedo increase.

[x-y-no]

I am not sure what you are proportioning or the units you are using.

That's the percentage change in distance from the Sun if the Earth orbit shifts 2.5 earth diameters.

1 AU equals 149,598,000 kilometers
1 Earth diameter equals 12,756 kilometers

((12756 x 2.5) / 149,598,000) x 100 = 0.0213%

I have it as at a .03 degree C short fall in of incoming heat just in winter in 2008/2009 climbing to a .125 degree C shortfall by winter 2011/2012 assuming no output change in the Sun. The cooler sunspots are not forming yet. That is just a snapshot at one day. If you look at seasonally the heat loss is far greater in the spring and summer months for the next 10 or so years, but the heat loss is computed daily with out an albedo increase.

How are you calculating this?

[gigabite]

http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

It is not a calculation it is spreadsheet. The graph is the average change in Earth /Sun distance over a 5 year period in AU’s. It is 4 graphs plotted side by side.

I got the temperature by dividing the aphelion perihelion temperature difference at SOHO by the distance difference between Earth aphelion and perihelion then multiplying the seasonal Earth/Sun distance difference. It is a crude approach. It does not take in consideration the inverse relationship of heat transfer or relative flux of the Sun, but it is a core number that can be adjusted.

Assuming that since the aggregate “offset temperature” has risen at SOHO since Solar Cycle 24’s Sunspot Maximum it can be deduced that the “offset temperature” could fall at SOHO at the next Solar Maximum, and therefore the incoming radiative heat (not flux) at Earth would also be reduced.

…Also as the Earth’s orbit is slung by this pass of Jupiter the reduced inbound heat (not flux) will be scaled down exponentially by the increased distance assuming that heat (not flux) behaves in a similar fashion as gravity.

In my opinion it is not reasonable economically to discount this hypothesis, because if it is right 30 years of cold winters are coming, and then staging for the global warming is a conflicting strategy.

First I would like to point out that Water vapor makes up about 90 percent of the total green house gas pie. Second, the last Ice Age ended about 11 thousand years ago. Third, the Glaciation cycle is about 270,000 years.

Many people share an obsession about global warming. It is a very popular subject on many boards. The school of thought I subscribe to is somewhat different. According to John Gribbin the co author of the book Ice Age copyright 2000. The Glaciation Cycle is 270,000 years.

Within the Glaciation Cycle there are many other climate cycles the Major Sun Cycle is about 200 years the Procession of the Summer New Moon is 250 years, and the Solar Max in about 12 years to name a few. The September issue of National Geographic has a graphic of CO2 change over the past 140 years from instrument readings and ice core samplings. This shows that the graph of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is becoming asymptotic. With that said there should also be a note that CO2 is a small fraction of the green house gas composite. 90 percent of the green house composition is water vapor. The 10 percent of the composite that is not water vapor has CO2 as a variable with a year over year range swing of 40 percent. The reliability of the base line over the last 140 years is really unquestionable. The problem is that it could be just a local surge relative to 99.86 percent of the rest of the cycle.

The scenario painted in the book Ice Age, which is a history of the theory of the concept of Glaciation over the last 140 years is that there will be a period as long as 30,000 years where the fresh water oceans spread rains almost evenly over the world. The deserts turn into grass lands the grass lands turn into forests and the forest turn into rain forests. The shore lines move inland from 5 to 20 kilometers. Storm severity due to increases atmospheric moisture could double. That might happen in 135,000 years.

Limiting CO2 emissions could take some of the swing out of the sample data. The overall trend is a function of the elongation of the planetary orbit and the spin off of the moon. Adapting to change is what humans do better than most species, we will survive.

Once the polar ice caps melt to the an equilibrium point relevant to the point in the 270,000 year cycle there will be plenty of fresh water to improve the size and number of storm systems to swing the global temperature back in sync with the very long count, to use a Mayan expression. More than likely this started to happened in 2006. There has to be hundreds of temperature swings in the very long count, and the 100 year trend is toward warming, except for the next 30 years.

The probability of developing a fix to the hydro carbon fuel problem before this little temperature swing starts is very unlikely. I would think that hording the base product for heating fuel would be prudent at this price. Maybe the strategic oil reserve should be tripled

It is to bad that Solar studies don’t have a higher budgetary priority.

[Sanibel]

Awfully warm down here this week in Florida. High dew point and relatively high humidity for this time. 82* several days in a row and warm. Unseasonably so.


No Telegraph articles on this?

[x-y-no]

Just had to respond to this since it's so often cited without any context as to how water vapor behaves in the atmosphere:

First I would like to point out that Water vapor makes up about 90 percent of the total green house gas pie.

Yes it does, but unlike carbon dioxide, methane etc. water vapor precipitates out of the atmosphere on a very short timeframe. If you could somehow magically double the water vapor content of the entire atmosphere in an instant, it would return to equilibrium in a couple of weeks at most - as opposed to over a decade for methane and well over a century for carbon dioxide.

For this reason, water vapor is not a forcing. It is a feedback.

[gigabite]

You and NASA have a disagreement then.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... rming.html

[x-y-no]

You and NASA have a disagreement then.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... rming.html

No, we have no disagreement at all.

From the article you linked:

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Graph showing that the energy trapped by water peaks near the equator Based on climate variations between 2003 and 2008, the energy trapped by water vapor is shown from southern to northern latitudes, peaking near the equator.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

"The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous," Dessler said.

...

“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."

[gigabite]

I do not disagree with the citation.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... louds5.php

As moisture increases cloud albedo can increase from 30 to 90 percent, and surface temperature drops exponentially as cloud albedo increases.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/courses/climat/radbal.html

[x-y-no]

I do not disagree with the citation.

Good, so we're agreed water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... louds5.php

As moisture increases cloud albedo can increase from 30 to 90 percent, and surface temperature drops exponentially as cloud albedo increases.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/courses/climat/radbal.html

If you're proposing that changes in the pattern of cloud formation will act to counteract the waming feedback effect, this is Dick Lindzen's proposed "Iris Effect" which has been the subject of quite a lot of study with not terribly promising results for his hypothesis.

And once again I'd point out that the paleological record of quite large temperature variations argues against the atmosphere having a tightly effective negative feedback.

[gigabite]

I understand that you are representing a popular view, but the fact remains that clouds both reflect radiation back into space and reflect long wave radiation back to earth. The net effect is a factor of the thickness of the cloud. I am familiar with the so called “Iris Effect,” but the graph demonstrates computed results from the referenced education link below.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/courses/climat/radbal.html

I would also like to remind you that the resolution of the Paleontology record is vague and the smaller the time frame the smaller the reliability and it is totally worthless when looking at timeframes as small as 5 or 10 years, which is what I am talking about. The media record is only current to 1999, although there are some full reports generally available on the internet as recent as 2005, but they are based on older data. Real time data from 2006 is just now being compiled, and this is a threshold event happening in real time that remains unexplained because many of the traditional ways of looking at weather are based on conventional understanding and consensus not a theoretical mechanism.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979


No comment.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Even if that were true, the trend is still melting characteristic
of global warming world-wide. A short term recovery might
happen, but the trend is global warming.

[gigabite]

CO2 is such a small part of the greenhouse equation I am surprised that a conservation of energy argument isn't used more often, because the conversion of the potential energy of hydrocarbons expands the planets energy budget. Energy does not entropy and the heat from the conversion has to be accumulated in the soil and water and added to inbound and reflected heat.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

CO2 is such a small part of the greenhouse equation I am surprised that a conservation of energy argument isn't used more often, because the conversion of the potential energy of hydrocarbons expands the planets energy budget. Energy does not entropy and the heat from the conversion has to be accumulated in the soil and water and added to inbound and reflected heat.

Interesting...that could explain soil and water heating

[Ed Mahmoud]

CO2 is such a small part of the greenhouse equation I am surprised that a conservation of energy argument isn't used more often, because the conversion of the potential energy of hydrocarbons expands the planets energy budget. Energy does not entropy and the heat from the conversion has to be accumulated in the soil and water and added to inbound and reflected heat.

I suspect an approximation of the total amount of fossil fuels (coal and oil/gas) produced, and the resulting heat of oxidation, could be calculated, and further, I suspect it is a fairly small amount compared to the amount of heat absorbed and reflected/radiated back.


Just a hunch.

[x-y-no]

CO2 is such a small part of the greenhouse equation I am surprised that a conservation of energy argument isn't used more often, because the conversion of the potential energy of hydrocarbons expands the planets energy budget. Energy does not entropy and the heat from the conversion has to be accumulated in the soil and water and added to inbound and reflected heat.

I suspect an approximation of the total amount of fossil fuels (coal and oil/gas) produced, and the resulting heat of oxidation, could be calculated, and further, I suspect it is a fairly small amount compared to the amount of heat absorbed and reflected/radiated back.


Just a hunch.

Your hunch would be correct.

[gigabite]

Excuse me, please, which one is bigger? Earth's energy budget from the Sun is about 1 kw per square meter. The energy budget of one Ford Focus is about 407 kw per square meter much of that is in the form of heat, you know that internal combustion engine thingie under the hood, friction from the tires, cabin greenhouse and all that.