the polar bear climate change photo

Started Mar 24, 2007 | Discussions thread
TomFid Senior Member • Posts: 2,303
Re: The Answer Is

Tom Rowland wrote:

Hope I got this straight, it is all from memory.

You've assembled some of the key principles, but with some unfortunate memory loss.

planets dont orbit in a circle, and they also wobble on their axis,
which is suppose to cause ice ages on the earth about every 28,000
years or so.

The spectrum of orbital forcings has peaks around 23,000, 41,000, and 100,000 years. In the ice core record you see ice ages mainly at the 100k yr frequency.

Of course only a small amount of that energy like 13 wats per
square meter per 24 hours (close) high in the atmosphere reaches
earth.

It's more than 1300 watts at the top of the atmosphere (no 24hrs needed - watts measures energy input per time).

The black body temp should be about 235, our best models now say it
should be about 280, but in reality it is about 257 so we are
cooler than we should be. These numbers may be a little off since
they are from memory, but they are close. And if you are not using
kelvins use your friend google.

Models closely replicate current global temperatures without flux adjustments, and I don't think they've ever been as bad as the 23K gap you cite. It's certainly ridiculous to suggest that "our best models" are that far off.

Most of what is called global warming is really a discussion about
how much infra red blocking atoms and molecules slow down the rate
of global cooling. The infra red blocking stuff is composed of
about 95% water vapor and 5% CO2 (but some guys say it is closer to
97% water and 3% CO2).

Some guys say the moon is made of green cheese. First, water vapor is a feedback, i.e. the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere varies with temperature, and thus responds to and amplifies the effects of other greenhouse gases (like CO2). Second, you can only get the 95 or 97% figure by measuring the effect of water vapor without considering all other gases. In reality, the effects of different gases are nonlinear (due to overlapping IR absorption bands) so the contribution of water vapor is more like 1/3 to 2/3 of the total greenhouse.

And probably 90% or so of the CO2 is from
natural sources, not man made sources.

90% of the CO2 where? 100% of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is due to human causes (it's easy to verify this by checking the change in isotope ratios; fossil carbon looks different than plant carbon).

The only way a workable model can be constructed to get such small
amounts of man made CO2 to be significant is if you use what is
called a positive feed back loop, or come up with some kinda bound
carbon theory. Not to say these things are not possible, but they
are not really intuative appealing.

I've been working on climate policy on and off for 15 years and never heard of a "bound carbon theory." And a positive feedback loop is hardly some esoteric invention. Ever get interest on a bank account, or see plants grow? Positive feedback is so ubiquitous in nature that to suggest it can't be involved in a phenomenon is itself intuitively unappealing.

It also explains why lots of folks are saying given the small
contribution man made CO2 reducing it may not really make any
difference at all. And it explains why so much grant money is spent
trying to come up with models.

The folks who argue that are pointing out that small reductions in emissions have little effect because emissions are currently far above removals (by the ocean and biosphere), and the effect of CO2 on longwave forcing is logarithmic. Thus the effect of Kyoto is just to make atmospheric CO2 and temperature go up more slowly. They are not arguing that CO2 has no effect on temperature. The logical conclusion is either do nothing (if you think the welfare of your grandchildren is worth

Speaking of grant money, you should apply for your $10k from the American Enterprise Institute for refuting climate change - I don't think they're as picky about the technical details as I am.

Tom

 TomFid's gear list:TomFid's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
igb
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow