contrails

On 9 Jan, 13:02, T8 wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:56*am, Tom Gardner wrote:

On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy wrote:

Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,

Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.

Of course CO2 is a selective IR filter. *That's basic physics.

The more interesting question is: what is the effect of changing the
atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense, and
increasing (or decreasing) its concentration has only tertiary and
probably unmeasurable effects on climate. *There are weaker absorption
bands that may make a difference, but some/most(?) of these are in
areas of the spectrum where water vapor dominates completely as long
as water vapor is present.

"Of course it has been proven"? *Well, yes, the agenda setters take
that view. *It's regarded as a weak point of the AGW thesis by some.
It's an area that I think deserves particularly careful study, as this
is *the* key to the "A" in AGW.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Relevant info?

http://tiny.cc/o22Sr

Derek Copeland

There are a couple of words which have been thrown around in this long
thread. One is "Believe or belief". Another is "proof". Neither
have a place in an objective discussion of climate change.

"Belief" has far more to do with philosophy or religion than science.

"Proof" is a mathematical term not generally used in other scientific
disciplines.

It is not belief or proof but criticism which is central to the
scientific method. No scientific "conjecture" or "theory" or "fact"
is beyond criticism based on new data. However, there are rules for
presenting criticism. Any valid data contradicting the current
warming trend or suggesting causes other than burning fossil fuels
would get top billing.

The climate change theory is a particularly difficult one in that by
the time a solid data set is available for study, profound and highly
disruptive changes to our environment may have occurred. This
requires an attempt to predict the future with incomplete data - a
chancy endeavor at best.

Climate scientists don't talk about belief or proof - they use far
softer terms like "suggest" or "trends" . They don't worry much about
being 'right' or 'wrong' - their only certainty is that each new data
set will change their models and theories. The study of climate
change is very much a work in progress and the climate scientists know
it.

If one would understand the current state of climate research, avoid
all popular media - they have no interest in objective reporting. The
popular media just wants to stir up controversy so their audience will
stick around to watch or listen to the commercials. Avoid too the
radio talk show propagandists whose motives are similar and possibly
more sinister. Instead, read the scientific media like Scientific
American or New Scientist.

T8 wrote:

Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense, and
increasing (or decreasing) its concentration has only tertiary and
probably unmeasurable effects on climate. There are weaker absorption
bands that may make a difference, but some/most(?) of these are in
areas of the spectrum where water vapor dominates completely as long
as water vapor is present.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

I have tried to make that point over a year ago, having worked
in the IR surveillance field for 20 years and found you can't
shake the "true believers" faith with facts. :-(
...lew...

T8 wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:56 am, Tom Gardner wrote:

On Jan 9, 9:27 am, delboy wrote:


Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,

Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.


Of course CO2 is a selective IR filter. That's basic physics.

The more interesting question is: what is the effect of changing the
atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense, and
increasing (or decreasing) its concentration has only tertiary and
probably unmeasurable effects on climate. There are weaker absorption
bands that may make a difference, but some/most(?) of these are in
areas of the spectrum where water vapor dominates completely as long
as water vapor is present.
If this explanation made sense, we'd be as hot as Venus; in fact, heat
does work it's way up to the top of the atmosphere, and radiate into
space. It is up there, where the heat is actually escaping the planet,
that the concentration of CO2 is important, and the concentration of
water vapor is very low by comparison. Increasing the CO2 in the upper
levels of the atmosphere does significantly effect how easily heat
leaves the planet. This site has a pretty good explanation:

http://skepticalscience.com/link_to_...?Argument0=133

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

delboy wrote:
On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini wrote:


Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

As long as he is not being sponsored by the Oil or Coal Industries, I
would tend to believe him. The data he presents is accurate as far as
I can tell.

The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway, and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model? Global warming
or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
crusade, than hard science. That's not to say that we shouldn't
continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

Derek Copeland

Don't forget that humans emit CO2! You don't want the government
shutting THEM down, do you?

Scott

delboy wrote:
On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini wrote:

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

As long as he is not being sponsored by the Oil or Coal Industries, I
would tend to believe him. The data he presents is accurate as far as
I can tell.

The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,
OMG! Delboy, it's time to take your confusion about science back to
the forums that are made for it (and you know where they are). That
CO2 is a greenhouse gas isn't even controversial amongst the skeptics.
and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model?

Should we listen to someone who has no idea of the physical
characteristics of CO2? Derek, please visit this well known skeptic
site and look up the blog entries by Mr. Watts and his guest bloggers
to see what they have to say on the subject (also check out the
entries of Venus, the premier display of CO2 in action):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Those that want to learn more about climate science, but don't know
where to start, try this site for a good grounding, and explanations
covering the usual questions and claims.

http://skepticalscience.com/

If you are yearning for science at a higher level (but still
accessible), try this site, which is run by real, practicing,
publishing, climate scientists at the highest level:

http://www.realclimate.org/

RAS is NOT a good place to rehash decades old climate questions, as
Derek is trying to do, because these sites are well organized, easy
to search, and have comments by people that have been paying attention
for years. And if you are interested in the political and economic
aspects of global climate change, you'll find plenty of those, too.

And while Derek's off catching up on the science, we can go back to
soaring.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

On 10 Jan, 06:25, Eric Greenwell wrote:
delboy wrote:
On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini wrote:

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

As long as he is not being sponsored by the Oil or Coal Industries, I
would tend to believe him. The data he presents is accurate as far as
I can tell.

The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,

OMG! Delboy, it's time to take your confusion about science back to
the forums that are made for it (and you know where they are). That
CO2 is a greenhouse gas isn't even controversial amongst the skeptics.

*and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model?

Should we listen to someone who has no idea of the physical
characteristics of CO2? Derek, please visit this well known skeptic
site and look up the blog entries by Mr. Watts and his guest bloggers
to see what they have to say on the subject (also check out the
entries of Venus, the premier display of CO2 in action):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Those that want to learn more about climate science, but don't know
where to start, try this site for a good grounding, and explanations
covering the usual questions and claims.

http://skepticalscience.com/

If you are yearning for science at a higher level (but still
accessible), try this site, which is run by real, practicing,
publishing, climate scientists at the highest level:

http://www.realclimate.org/

RAS is NOT a good place to rehash decades old climate questions, as
Derek is trying to do, because these sites *are *well organized, easy
to search, and have comments by people that have been paying attention
for years. And if you are interested in the political and economic
aspects of global climate change, you'll find plenty of those, too.

And while Derek's off catching up on the science, we can go back to
soaring.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can only assume that Eric thinks he is losing the argument, as he
has lowered himself to slagging me off. For the record I have a
Masters degree in Chemistry and spent most of my life earning a crust
as an atomic spectroscopist. I am quite familiar with the absorption
characteristics of CO2 thanks.

The salesmen of AGW are in a similar position to financial services
salesmen in a bull market. They can point to a graph showing ever
increasing share values (global temperatures), and predict that you
will worth billions by the time you retire (the world will have become
a fireball). Unfortunately stock markets are as cyclical as the
climate, and sooner or later you will hit a bear market. This is what
seems to be happening now to global temperatures.

I would also like to do some soaring, but at the moment my club's site
is under a few feet of snow!

Derek Copeland

On Jan 8, 7:57*pm, Mark Jardini wrote:
I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.

According to the Lake Tahoe Vacation Guide http://www.tahoevacationguide.com/laketahoe.html
it is 14 inches. 14 inches is geometrically/mathematically correct if
the entire state were at the same elevation. Calif is about 404,000
sq. km in projected area and Lake Tahoe contains about 39 trillion
gallons of water if one accepts the figures given. That would be
1.48e18 cubic cm / 4.04e16 square cm = 36.6 cm = about 14 inches. But
I would think that the peaks in elevation of California exceed the
valleys so in "reality" the lowland flooding would exceed 14" and
higher ground would be left dry - but that's a bit of a quibble.
Thinking of it as 14" is just fine for illustration.

Regards,

-Doug (It must be winter or why would I bother doing the math?) ;-)

Mark Jardini wrote:
I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.


If someone told you that they are full of something that should be
flushed down the drain line.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.


Another bit of errata.

Mark Jardini

...lew...

mike wrote:
On Jan 8, 4:26 am, Scott wrote:
Mark Jardini wrote:
While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
Mark Jardini
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

Thank you Scott. A voice of reason.

Mike Carris

Ah yes, a weather talk by John Coleman.

After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather
anchor for WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather
anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and
WLS-TV in Chicago. He helped found the Weather Channel.

What weight can one possibly place on the 95% consensus of researchers
in the field against a media expert TV weather man?

Brian W