What Do We Think About Climate Change

Found this:

"When U.S. air traffic was grounded for several days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the only contrails on satellite images were ones made by six military aircraft, NASA had a chance to see the difference the streamers make. Within five hours, the contrails from the six jets had expanded to cover 8,000 square miles. �
"

and I believe the term used is "global dimming"...

 

Knut,

Please consider posting your CO2 theory calculations and numbers over at http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=CO2 stories

I think you may find it interesting as there are some very fine mathematicians posting there. Bon chance!

Perry

 

From Ron de Haan (17:47:33) : at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/...ars-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof/#more-3739

He writes:

"I have found the following calculation on the web site:
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/calcs.html

THE NUMBERS ABOUT CARBON DIOXIDE IN OUR ATMOSPHERE

Here are the calculations, based on information obtained directly from the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, Holland (KNMI).

Mass (air) = 4 pi R^2 * P/g, where
R=earth radius=6,371,000 m; P=surface pressure=101,300 Pa; g=acceleration due to gravity=9.8 m/s^2

Thus, Mass (air) = 5.3 x 10^18 kg = 5,300,000 Gigatons

Mass (CO2 = mass (air)*ratio (CO2/air)*mol. mass (CO2)/mol. mass (air), where
ratio (CO2/air)=380 ppm=380 parts CO2 per 1 million parts of air
molecular mass (CO2)=44 kg/kmol - molecular mass (air)=28.8 kg/kmol

Thus, Mass (CO2)=3 x 10^15 kg=3,000 Gigatons

Man-made emissions of CO2 are estimated at 110ppm, which is 28.95% of the total CO2
and that equals 868 Gigatons = 0.0164% by mass of the total atmosphere.

A Gigaton is a 1,000 million tons and 1 ton is 1,000kg, equal to 2,240lbs. Carbon Dioxide Graphic

SO . . . IF THE UK WAS TO COLLECTIVELY “SAVE” 1 BILLION TONS . . . (quite impossible)
THAT’S EXACTLY 0.0333% OF THE TOTAL CO2 . . . and all the Government wants to save so far is about 100 million tons - a mere 0.00333% . . . . Every little helps, but surely you can see that this is way beyond being ridiculous?! Think of the words wind, against and . . . surely you can see that?!"

I think that's worth knowing.

Perry

 

Hi Perry, nice to have you around here again!
Unluckily for me I have a very poor internet access where I am now (traveling), so I'll cannot properly follow up discussion for several days.

Cheers.

 

Keep an eye on the Sun. Still no spots.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
Perhaps something to do with the present weakness of the heliosphere?

Cheers.

 

Hi Jim, - - all quiet over your way?

 

hiya Mas. ,, quiet,, but bizy,, seems like everyone has extra money here, and wants to give it to me,, been out straight for 2 weeks. friends from up north keep calling to tell me how bad it is,, and i just tell em to move down here,, is like the boom is still going.
how bout ova there? and hows that mean wife of yours doing?,, i see she hasnt killed you for messing with her puters yet,, lol

 

Quiet, We are still keen to sell both homes but no takers (except for the parasites hoping to pick up a "mortgauge distress bargain" and it is getting to be a bit tedious telling them something like, - "... it is not for rent - make a serious offer for the purchase or **** off..."

I tried to get this thread back on to boat-design but not much luck there either - my current favourite is http://www.boboramdesign.com.au/39-c/ in the motor-sailer version if the hulls (underwater) are a bit like this http://www.boboramdesign.com.au/36-streaky-bay-for-sale/

Computers are still a "cooking project" as the ram is not co-operating with the motherboard by showing errors (defective RAM) but there is none.??????
- - seems 4G Ram on a mini ITX causes issues particularly with low energy high erformance configuration for the boat... The failing market is inducing "heat" - she who must be obeyed still demands a McMansion - for just the 2 of us??? - - Nuckin Futs - - says each of us me Y 4 the big house & she Y 4 the expensive boat (both around $400K each)....

 

Then what on earth is the point of this discussion???!!! CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, but the only greenhouse gas which human activity produces on a scale that even approaches significance in terms of a fraction of the earth's atmosphere. The AGW alarm crowd insists that CO2 is the problem. How could they assert anything else when it's the most important of the several 'minor' greenhouse gases, and the sources of the greenhouse gas of real merit, water vapor (which accounts for ~ 95% of the greenhouse effect) are entirely natural:?:

As I pointed out in a previous post, CO2 levels were rising before the industrial revolution began. This is consistent with a warming ocean as atmospheric CO2 fraction is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures.

You might believe this with all of your heart, but does your belief have any basis in observed science? Here's my data which underpins my assertion that CO2 has little importance as a greenhouse gas by itself:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Since you probably won't actually read and digest the information on the above web page, and will probably simply form a knee-jerk response asserting the data must be tainted by petroleum industry money or right wing ideologues or some such nonsense, I've gone the extra mile and copied the bibliography for you and here it is:

References:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

2) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

3) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

4) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264



The AGW alarm crowd acknowledges that the intrinsic greenhouse potential of CO2 is not the issue, but instead that CO2 somehow forms a (positive) feedback loop with water vapor, which then results in global temperatures spiraling upward. And this does not even begin to address the Beer-Lambert (Bouguer) equations which describes the logarithmic nature of absorption of radiative energy in a gaseous medium, which equations show that CO2 is a very efficient greenhouse gas for only the first ~200 ppm, with diminishing returns above this, and that we are near saturation now, and that a further doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc. of the present concentrations will produce little additional greenhouse warming.

Another unaddressed problem of AGW theory is that even if small increases in CO2 could somehow leverage water vapor concentrations upward, increases in water vapor tend to increase cloud cover, which causes a reduction in solar radiative budget which totally overshadows (nice pun, huh ) the water vapor's increased insulative (greenhouse) effect! They don't even bother trying to model this 'little' problem because presently THEY CAN'T!

SO many holes....

and yet you still believe


Jimbo

 

Yeah!! What he said! (that was one helluva post) I've noticed that moisture comes out when I exhale. Should I stop exhaling to lessen the only real greenhouse gas? You all go first.

I wonder if, in 10 years, the world will be spraying glaciers with oil tar to slow their creep over the land...and to use up the mass excess of petroleum.

Orwell's 1984 has finally arrived - a television infused world where reality is what pushes political agendas and lines the pockets of those in power.

 

Computer fixed - - it was the BIOS - the new version had a glitch so had to re-install the "old" version??????

 

Jimbo,

A magnificent rebuttal. Here to add to your victory over the attacks of the insidious are two images from Cryosphere showing side by side satellite images from 21st October. The Arctic region has greatly increased ice cover than revealed on the same date last year.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/2007vs08arctic.JPG

What is even more exciting is the graph from AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent that shows the 2008 ice recovery line in red, heading almost vertically upwards.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent102108.jpg

That is approximately 3% INCREASE in area per day.

You and I are very well aware that there are those who post here who are so besotted, one could even say stricken, with the virus of unwavering faith in the false religion of AGW (man made warming for the linguistically challenged) but, were they to open their minds, to the possibility that their faith was not so well founded. they might now be on the road to recovery from the terrors of global warming that have been blighting their lives. :idea:

Oh dear, here's more bad news for the AGW believers. This time it's SNOW COVER. Oh no, I can't take it anymore. We're doomed. The globe is getting hotter---------NOT!!

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_daily.php?ui_year=2008&ui_day=295&ui_set=0

Envision this. All over the world there are benighted rsoles on their knees praying fervently to the false Trinity of Gore, Hanse and Mann, pleading for guidance and help. Are their pleas receiving attention? DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT. Their false messiahs are filling suitcases with loose cash in their desperate haste to leave town before the posse arrives. Sounds a bit like the sons of Saddam Hussein try to leg it out of Iraq. What goes around comes around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uday_qusay_house.jpg

That, dear readers, is the underlying message. Science is never settled. There are ALWAYS new facts to discover. AN INCONTROVERTIBLE TRUTH

READ, MARK, LEARN & INWARDLY DIGEST!

 

Those bloody climatologists! They keep quietly beavering away at their scientific research and they they go and publish their findings. It's just not fair to Gore, Hansen & Mann, is it?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/...rctic-may-have-had-less-ice-6-7000-years-ago/

Regards,

Perry

 

Global Warming not longer a worry.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/623-The-Stark-Choice-Now-Facing-America.html

Stick your head between your knees and kiss it all goodbye. Basel II did it all.

"Talking to a farmer the other day, I was trying to explain the concept of "mark to market", and hit on this wheeze. Imagine, I said, it is 19 March 1996 and you have just bought 150 head of store cattle at £200 each that you are going to fatten up and sell in a few months. How much are those cattle worth?

Simple arithmetic tells you that you have an investment worth £30,000.

But this is 19 March 1996, which means the next day is 20 March 1996. On that day, health minister Stephen Dorrell stood up in parliament and announced a tentative link between the killer disease CJD and Mad Cow Disease (BSE). The meat market didn't go into free fall – it evaporated. I don't think a single beast was sold that day.

So how much are your cattle worth, I ask my farmer. £30,000, he says - he had no intention of selling them. But if you had sold them on the market that day, how much? Er… there was no market. In that case, I declared – feeling very pleased with myself - their value was zero. That's "mark to market". You have to value on a "fire sale" basis, according to what your cattle – your assets – will fetch on the day.

Now, imagine you are a bank. This is your "toxic debt" – your 150 head, nominally worth £30,000. On the basis of that holding, you have been allowed – for the purpose of this example – to borrow a maximum of ten times that amount, which you are allowed to lend, i.e., £300,000. This is called "leverage".

You borrow your £300,000 daily on the short-term wholesale money market at a low interest rate. You then lend it to long-term borrowers at a higher interest rate and make your money out of the difference. That, as Tim Congdon says, is what banks do. Each day, of course, you must pay back your own borrowing, but that is not a problem. You borrow some more, again to match your own lending.

But it is 20 March 1996. Your assets are suddenly worth zero, on a "mark to market" valuation. That, for those technically inclined and who remember the BSE scare, this is the "prion" that has invaded the system, via the "infected feed" of mortgage securitisation and other "complex financial instruments".

You are now too highly leveraged. You are, in fact, insolvent. No commercial bank will lend you any money. You either have to claw back your loans, or you have to top-up your capital – issue more shares. Failing that, you could go to the Bank of England as a lender of last resort. Or you could go to the government for a "bail-out", in which case they'll "nationalise" your farm and put their own manager in. Whatever else happens, you certainly cannot lend any more money.

That – absurdly simplified – is roughly what is happening in to our banks. The banking system is suffering from its own form of BSE - "Mad Bank Disease". The infective agent is "mark to market"."

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/10/simple-explanation.html

I favour simple explanations. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

Regards,

Perry

 

The point of this discussion is just that; discuss. So far we're doing fine..

The www.geocraft.com mentioned above point out the fact that water is a greenhouse gas, well, in my opinion, it's not a greenhouse gas, but it can act like that. Ok; I don't feel comfortable with expressions like GWP global warming potential, as in potential energy? Something that hasn't happened yet? I do not understand the tables, but on table 2, they state that Methane has 21 x GWP as CO2, Yet they manage to link to a page (your no 1), that states that there is less effect from methane than for CO2, so CO2 is still worth consideration.

1) Your link to CDIAC, have a nice expression: "Increased radiative forcing 5 (W/m2)" Lets be somewhat brutal with that number just below there: CO2: 1.66 W/m2 Increased radiative forcing, not much, clearly close to notthing...or...?
Earth dia: 12 700 000 m
Earth area d x d x Pi = 12700000 x 12700000 x 3,1416 = 5,07 e14 m2.
Increased input energy in 1 sec: 8,4 e14 W or Joule (for 1 sec that'll be the same).
Let's kick that number around for a sec....
If we were to heat some litres of water from 20 deg C to 100 deg C? How many? that's delta 80 deg C, We'll need approx 4100 J/ltr/deg.....
we divide by 80, divide by 4100: 2 564 434 Litres of water evaporate each second... But hey, it's a big world!
How many litres in a year?
2 564 434 x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365 = 8,0872 e 16 Litres... The world suddenly seem a bit smaller?
Ok. to get a feel for what it will mean, on the average, we have the earh's area here also, let's divide that again....
8,0872 e16 / 5,07 e14 = 159,5 Litres...each m2, each year... This is the increase. So, it we can put our mark on the weater by 30 % of that, what's the problem?

2) Hm "file not found" probably something wrong with my viewer....
same for 3)...? Bugger....

Ok, water wapor, read this if you're curious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
Scroll down to contrails/ climate and also 11 september,
Let's look at contrails:
If we assume a net forcing of the temperature (1992) to be between 3,5 mW/m2 to 17 mW/m2 (in the article); let's say 10 mW/m2 and ok, the air traffic has increased 3-5% ea year, we use 3%...
10 mW/m2 x 1,03 x 1,03 x 1,03 etc.... = 16,4 mW/m2. Let'd do what we can; kick the numbers: 0,0164 W/m2 x 5,07 e14 = 8,3148 e12 /80 / 4100 = Due to contrails from airplanes we have 25 350 litres of water evaporating each ******* second.... ooops....
In a year: x 60x60 x24 x365 = 7,9944 e11 Litres ea year....
But for the fun of it; divide by earth area:
7,9944 e11/ 5,07 e14 = 0,0016, so 1-2 mm of rain is falling on our heads due to air traffic each year, well some get none of this, some get all....

Have a good night.

And btw; I'm a believer.....
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfuBREMXxts )