What Do We Think About Climate Change

Has anyone looked into how variations in solar energy reaching the earth effect climate?

That is, if there is a increase in radiant energy, is the effect on climate linear?

Is there any observed "feedback" which amplifies the increase?

 

Questions:

On our planet.

1) Would the planet be warmer or colder if there was no water present?

2) Would the planet be warmer or colder if there was no Co2 present?

3) How much solar energy is striking the planet in w/m^2

 

Thomas,
have you read my post 1599?

 

Will check - hold on a sec....

Ok- yes.. I had posted a paper a bit back which seemed to quantify this & I believe the whole issue remains as one of the topics we have not explored to full depth.

 

Thomas,

Hotter air will indeed hold more water. On the solar radiation question, this is a very hot topic in climate science right now, and not simple at all. The sun throws out a lot of different types of radiation, and they interact with the earth in different ways. The different types of radiation vary quite a lot in cycles.

In your hypothetical case questions, when you say 'no water present', this means no ocean, completely water free? CO2 is a small part of the greenhouse budget and pretty effective the first 100 ppm, but I expect removing it entirely would cool down the atmosphere. But without water vapor, you are subtracting 96% of the greenhouse effect. That will have a profound impact. The place would go into a deep freeze, I expect. Except with no water to freeze.

Jimbo

 

A small FACT excerpted from the Monckton paper, cited several times in this thread:

"It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted."

Jimbo

 

Hi rasorinc!
Good post! There is a connection to boating: "Ship logs and pottery show how the geomagnetic field has changed."

An interesting media discussion on the matter here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3016_magnetic.html

And a animation on magnetic field reversal based on the Glatzmaier-Roberts model here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/reversals.html

From there:
"The strength of our world's magnetic field has been diminishing for the past 300 years. If the Glatzmaier-Roberts model accurately simulates the processes that drive the magnetic field, the loss of strength could be an indication that a reversal is under way. This would be no surprise. On average, reversals of the Earth's magnetic field happen every 250,000 years. It's now been about 720,000 years since our last reversal. Judging from history, we know that a reversal is long overdue. But there's no need to throw away your old compasses. A reversal usually takes hundreds or thousands of years to complete."

Another interesting site, with lots of info, here:
http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/dmglist.htm

Cheers.

 

Magnetic Reversal

Guillermo, Thank you very much for your reply and information, I greatly
appreciate your effort and I shall read the posts over and over.
Thanks much, Stan

 

Playing Gods

Here a partial list of the crazy and most dangerous geo-engineering proposals GW alarmism is producing:

- spraying sulfate particles into Earth's stratosphere
- produce white clouds over the ocean
- pump CO2 into rocks or deep sea
- series of giant mirrors in space
- billions of aluminized, hydrogen-filled balloons in the stratosphere
- growing algae/phytoplankton in the sea to absorb carbon dioxide
- floating giant white foam frisbees to reflect sunlight
- depositing giant ice cubes in the middle of the ocean
- dump quicklime into the oceans to sequester more carbon in their depths
- building Pykrete sheets (structure/ships) to reflect the sunlight
- decrease efficiency of burning in engines of aircraft flying in the low stratosphere to maintain a thin cloud of soot to intercept sunlight
- burn sulfur in ships or power plants to form sulfate aerosol in order to stimulate additional low marine clouds to reflect sunlight
- using nuclear bombs to create a nuclear winter
- mining moon dust to create a shielding cloud
- reflective plastic sheets covering 67,000 square miles of desert
- chemically removing hydrochloric acid from the ocean by electrolysis
- placing large vertical pipes in the oceans to bring nutrient rich water to the surface
- burying biomass directly, thus sequestering the carbon in the ground
............

My God....!

 

You forgot one..

- releasing 160 billion tons of Co2 directly into the atmosphere


NO WAIT-

That actually has no effect at all.....

rolls eyes...!

 

Yeah, Thomas,

It's having SOOO much effect that even though CO2 releases increased DRAMATICALLY in the 80's, those darn tropospheric temperatures stayed flat or even fell slightly since the 90's. Golly, how inconvenient!

Jimbo

 

"That actually has no effect at all....."

Might do, might do! Plants will gratefully use the extra CO2 and grow larger. CO2 is food for plants. They love it!! More CO2 means a greater yield. Colder summers will shorten the growing seasons. Extra CO2 will be beneficial. CO2 is pumped into glasshouses to improve the harvest. 1000 ppm is an average figure.
http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=174_59
http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/index.asp?PageID=424&subsection=&Year=2005&NewsID=593

 

maybe we should plant these most everywhere.
http://www.sustainableangels.com/kiri.htm

 

Reading the provided research I see jimbo?

How is everyone this morning?

Cold rainy here.... could ice up.

Anyone in Germany? I am looking into a nice old Diana 65.

 

Thomas,

There's absolutely NOTHING in the research showing alarming warming in the tropical troposphere. The latest obfuscation to 'cover' this is to postulate that mebbe greenhouse warming will affect th poles more (WTF?!) even though basic greenhouse theory says otherwise.

Meanwhile the GCM's continue to be programmed on the assumption that greenhouse warming hits the tropical troposphere most, just like theory suggests, since when they tried to model on the novel idea that such warming affects the poles more, the results were so wacky that even AGW alarmists couldn't believe them

I guess it's still easier to come up with another obfuscation than to admit that what warming we do see is not due to changes in the greenhouse heat budget caused by anthropogenic CO2, and all that implies. The lassitude response just doesn't cut it for me; how about you?

Jimbo