contrails

On Dec 25, 6:06*pm, T8 wrote:
The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to
prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW.

That used to be the case a generation ago, but now AGW *is*
the status quo. Time moves on, and now it is up to the AGW
skeptics to prove their case.

However, I believe that burden also includes providing every
opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his
assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions.
These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and
the extreme costs of such policy.

Where have you been for the past ~30 years? How long is required for
it not be be a "rush"!?


Because I am after truth, I am deeply suspicious of those who claim to
have found "truth" who are clearly on board with the political agenda
that follows and snipped

The "other side" could mutate "political agenda" into "commercial
agenda" and use it as a weapon against the AGW skeptics.

On Dec 27, 3:07*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
T8 wrote:

The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to
prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW.
However, I believe that burden also includes providing every
opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his
assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions.

I'm all for transparency, but there are limits: "Every opportunity" is
very open ended, and can lead to the scientist spending most of his time
dealing with requests for more and more information, and more and more
help understanding it, and more and more help running the models. You
may not know the people requesting all this information and all this
help expect it for *free*.

The standard, instead, are the papers he produces. If they are good
ones, they will provide the evidence needed. If the papers don't do
that, they may not get published, or if they are, then they don't get
much attention, are not cited very often, and the scientist finds
himself in the professional dust bin.

Besides, the raw data is available (and other resources), and nothing
should stop another person from devising his own theories, developing
his own models, and ultimately writing papers that don't have the
"flaws" he was complaining about. Some have done this, with varying
degrees of success. These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and
the extreme costs of such policy. *In my view this is absolutely
required.

There is no rush. The potential for climate problems began to be
understood in the '70's, and the science is far better now. It may seem
like there is a rush because we've delayed taking action sooner when the
problem was smaller.

Very nicely put.

“Maintaining an open mind is essential when exploring the
unknown,
but allowing one’s brains to fall out in the process is
inadvisable.”
Dean Radin

Originally Posted by glidergeek

On Dec 26, 2:36*am, delboy wrote:
On Dec 25, 6:31*pm, brian whatcott wrote:

delboy wrote:
/snip/ 2) There is geological and fossil evidence to suggest that it has been
hotter in previous eras, but life on earth was not wiped out.

Recent investigations suggest most extinctions have occurred at the hot
point of climate cycles, I read in a recent copy of New Scientist (sorry
the reference is wishy-washy...)

Brian W

There have also been extinctions at the cold points, including our
near relatives the neanderthals, who failed to survive the last ice
age!

Derek C

Ya tell that to the Vikings that got forced out of farming Iceland in
the 14 century, who caused that?

The people (of Viking origin) that were farming Iceland in the 14th century did not stop farming there and their decendants are still farming Iceland.
You may be thinking of Greenland?

Tom Gardner wrote:
On Dec 27, 12:05 am, brian whatcott wrote:
I was shocked when somebody showed me that the UK is approximately on
Siberian latitudes, so that there is supposed to be some warm flow that
keeps it bearable - but that flow is not immutable, apparently...

Very clearly shown in the the 0degree isotherm for January, see
http://etc.usf.edu/Maps/pages/3000/3031/3031.jpg

Also consider that the "polar bear capital of Canada" is at the
same latitude as the south of England.

Interesting that the January 30degF isotherm pushes north in the North
Atlantic and North Pacific while the 70degF+ band in the tropics pushes
south at mid-Summer in South America, Australia and South Africa.

Brian W

"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:13:54 -0800, Newill wrote:

On Dec 23, 10:38 am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:

Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
persistent contrails filled the southern sky.

Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm
period was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of
contrails in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US
West Coast airports.

--

In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline
(PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that
contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming!

So, how did they explain the 1 degree C rise in ground temperature during
the three days when all civil aviation was grounded?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

I think they explained it this way:
If the temperature rises when the clouds are _not_ there, then, logically,
it's possible that the presence of the clouds makes it cooler.

Tim Ward

On Dec 27, 3:32*pm, "Tim Ward" wrote:
"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message

...



On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:13:54 -0800, Newill wrote:

On Dec 23, 10:38 am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:

Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the
persistent contrails filled the southern sky.

Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their
spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm
period was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of
contrails in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US
West Coast airports.

--

In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline
(PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that
contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming!

So, how did they explain the 1 degree C rise in ground temperature during
the three days when all civil aviation was grounded?

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

I think they explained it this way:
If the temperature rises when the clouds are _not_ there, then, logically,
it's possible that *the presence of the clouds makes it cooler.

Tim Ward

Clouds cool in the day by reflecting sunlight back into space and keep
the warmth in at night so minimum temps are warmer than on clear
nights.

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:05:01 -0600, brian whatcott
wrote:

delboy wrote:
On 26 Dec, 17:52, brian whatcott wrote:

On the micro-climate scale, people round here are glad of a
winter cold spell - to extinguish the noxious pests, if only temporarily.

Brian W- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was looking forward some nice Mediterranean type weather for the UK
by now, due to global warming. In practice it seems to be colder
wetter and snowier. What went wrong?

Derek Copeland


I was shocked when somebody showed me that the UK is approximately on
Siberian latitudes, so that there is supposed to be some warm flow that
keeps it bearable

That would be the Gulf Stream.

rj

Ralph Jones wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:05:01 -0600, brian whatcott
wrote:

delboy wrote:
On 26 Dec, 17:52, brian whatcott wrote:

On the micro-climate scale, people round here are glad of a
winter cold spell - to extinguish the noxious pests, if only temporarily.

Brian W- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I was looking forward some nice Mediterranean type weather for the UK
by now, due to global warming. In practice it seems to be colder
wetter and snowier. What went wrong?

Derek Copeland

I was shocked when somebody showed me that the UK is approximately on
Siberian latitudes, so that there is supposed to be some warm flow that
keeps it bearable

That would be the Gulf Stream.

rj

I don't argue with the naming of the warm Northward current, I argue
with the idea that the climate is bearable! :-)

Brian W

On Dec 29, 12:49*pm, brian whatcott wrote:
Ralph Jones wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:05:01 -0600, brian whatcott
wrote:

delboy wrote:
On 26 Dec, 17:52, brian whatcott wrote:

On the micro-climate scale, people round here are glad of a
winter cold spell - to extinguish the noxious pests, if only temporarily.

Brian W- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I was looking forward some nice Mediterranean type weather for the UK
by now, due to global warming. In practice it seems to be colder
wetter and snowier. What went wrong?

Derek Copeland

I was shocked when somebody showed me that the UK is approximately on
Siberian latitudes, so that there is supposed to be some warm flow that
keeps it bearable

That would be the Gulf Stream.

rj

I don't argue with the naming of the warm Northward current, I argue
with the idea that the climate is bearable! *:-)

Brian W

ObJoke: we don't have climate, we have weather!

.... the variability of which makes us acutely sensitive
to changes.

.... and is the reason why "the weather" is a standard
conversation topic amongst the British

"brian whatcott" wrote

I don't argue with the naming of the warm Northward current, I argue with
the idea that the climate is bearable! :-)

Remember the old joke that goes something like, "stick your left foot in a
pot of 140 degree (F) water, and your right foot in a pot of ice water. On
the average, your feet are comfortable."

Change that around to: "On January 31st, stick your bare left foot outside
the door in England, while putting your right foot in a freezer at the
outside temperature in Siberia at the same date, and wait a few minutes."

I predict you will then agree that the left foot is cold, but much more
reasonably warmer than your right foot.

No argument that they are both too damn cold for me. That is why I moved
from Ohio to North Carolina 20 some years ago. Still, today it is too damn
cold for me, even in North Carolina.

Everything is relative. In Key West (Florida) they put own down-stuffed
coats when it goes down below 50 degrees. In Wisconsin, when it gets to 50
degrees in the wintertime, they take off their coats, down to a short sleeve
T-shirt! g
--
Jim in NC