contrails

On Dec 23, 6:41*pm, T8 wrote:
On Dec 23, 6:11*pm, bildan wrote:



So, do I 'believe' in global warming? *It's not a matter of belief -
it's a matter of what the data is saying. *What is available now is
extremely alarming.

I regard that point as honestly debatable. *And all the hot air out of
Al Gore to the contrary, I do not think we've really had that debate.
I'd like to see this chap (Richard Lindzen, MIT prof.)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57456742391702...
get a little more airplay as I think he's done some excellent work and
tough luck that the results don't play well with the current political
agenda. *You can hardly call this "sniping at the edges".

Don't doubt for a moment that NCAR is full of earnest, smart, hard
working guys. *And I think that if pressed over a couple of beers that
they will probably admit that their models are full of problems.
That's part of what Lindzen's work is all about: getting the
atmospheric data that will validate (or not) these models. *Mostly
"not" at the moment, it appears. *And until they *are* validated, the
models are not useful for prediction, full stop.

One thing I've wondered about rather idly, that I have not seen come
up in discussions on the topic of AGW, is what the AGW proponents
think about the cycle of the ice ages, and if these cycles are
supposed to have become irrelevant. *My home has spent the majority of
the last million years under a *lot* of ice and snow. *In fact, that
should probably be regarded as the normal condition here in what we
now call New Hampshire, USA. *Do these guys *really* believe that the
cycle of the ice ages has been broken? *If so, does their model
predict the end of the Holocene and a return to an ice age in the
absence of anthropogenic CO2? *If not... pray tell, *why* not?

I don't work in this area. *I have a business, well two of 'em
actually, to run, a family to take care of and a sweetheart of a curvy
beautiful 24 year old glider to fly in such spare time as I have, so
about all *I* have time to do on AGW is "snipe at the edges". *In so
doing, I hope to plant seeds of rational thought in others' minds such
that we become as a whole a bit more resistant to being hearded about
like so many sheep.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

New data doesn't 'validate' the models, they just get incorporated
into the next run. Validation would take the next hundred years of
data and by then it will be too late. Climate models are like huge,
incredibly complicated spreadsheets - so big that it takes the fastest
computers in the world months to run them. Climate models will never
be "validated". The newest data trends seem to be pushing the models
toward even more extreme outcomes.

Ice ages do seem to be cyclic. If so, the current epoch should have
us easing into an ice age. That the reverse is happening is even more
worrying.

A warming Earth would probably improve thermal soaring by expanding
the Troposphere - thermals would be taller and stronger. However, if
any of the proposed "geo-engeneering" ideas are ever tried, it would
be the end of thermal soaring as we know it.

Could it get worse? Unfortunately, yes.

If you want to see real terror on the face of a climatologist, mention
"methane clathrates" - methane trapped in ice formations. Methane is
a far more powerful "greenhouse gas" than CO2. Truly vast amounts of
it are in extremely unstable submarine ice deposits on continental
shelves. Even without much warming at all, they are known to erupt
with enough power to sink ships.

Even more methane is trapped in melting permafrost. In the last
decade and for the first time in human memory, large lakes of
mel****er circle the shores of the Arctic Ocean in summer - each
boiling violently with escaping methane. Large releases of methane is
the first and most important "trigger point" that could cause runaway
greenhouse warming.

Are there any natural events that might stop global warming? Yes, a
supervolcano eruption would do it - temporarily. Other events might
slow it like vast expansions of northern forests 'fertilized' by extra
CO2. In fact, brush lands are expanding northward. Others suggest
that algae blooms will eat the CO2. From the geologic record, it
appears that CO2 buildups get sucked out of the atmosphere after a
long warm period by some as yet unknown process - leading to a global
freeze-up in less than 50 years.

Bill Daniels

On Dec 23, 10:06*pm, bildan wrote:
The newest data trends seem to be pushing the models
toward even more extreme outcomes.

That's interesting take... even the CRU admit that current world wide
surface temps are running below the expectations of their models (last
decade).

Also, atmospheric temps have *never* shown the expected signature of
CO2 based warming (warming at altitude vs surface). Ask your NCAR
guys about that.

Also ask them what in blazes happened to the medieval warm period.
The "hockey stick" guys have completely removed from their charts.
WTF is up with that? This isn't "science". It's rapidly turning into
simple minded fear mongering.

You set the "standard of proof" for the models pretty low, Bill.
We're talking the whole of modern industrial society, the whole of
modern agriculture on the block here. Drastic action would ordinarily
seem to demand a proportionately high standard of proof. But oh, yes,
"there's not time." Ah.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Nice visuals the complexities involved he

http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...the-consensus/

After lots of research, the author concludes:

"My conclusion is “what a nightmare”. I was generally shocked and
appalled by how difficult it was to source counter arguments. The data
was often tucked away on extremely ancient or byzantine websites. The
key counter arguments I often found, 16 scrolls down, on comment 342
on a far flung realclimate.org post from three years ago. And even
when I found an answer, the answers were excessively jargonized or
technical.

Most of the info for this image is sourced from Realclimate.org. It’s
an amazing blog staffed tirelessly by some of the world’s leading
climatologists.

Unfortunately, the majority of the writing on there is so scientific
and so technical, it makes the website nigh on useless to the casual,
curious reader."

-Tom

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


On Dec 23, 10:38Â 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?


Three days is weather. Actually, one week is weather, one month is
weather, one year is weather. Get up to five years, ten years, now you
are starting to talk climate. For an explanation of a three day event,
talk to a meteorologist, because three days isn't something climate
scientists even think about predicting.

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

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


On Dec 23, 10:38Â 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?


Three days is weather. Actually, one week is weather, one month is
weather, one year is weather. Get up to five years, ten years, now you
are starting to talk climate. For an explanation of a three day event,
talk to a meteorologist, because three days isn't something climate
scientists even think about predicting.

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

So, do I 'believe' in global warming? *It's not a matter of belief -
it's a matter of what the data is saying. *What is available now is
extremely alarming.

Bill Daniels

Hear, hear! Great note, Bill.

I've worked in disaster preparedness planning for 38 years, starting
as a geographer/climatologist. The data started to talking to us in
the mid-70s when we started noticing tree rings and glacier cores. The
only people who are aware of the data and are not yet convinced of the
truth of the slow-disaster that is global warming and the consequent
eco-system collapse and extinctions are intellectually dishonest,
genuinely mentally impaired, or sociopaths.

On Dec 24, 12:18*am, Tuno wrote:
Ah, the old "Common man can't do his own critical thinking on an
important matter" argument. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Ah, the old "Amateur can understand any complex
difficult topic with a little thought" argument. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Not impressive.

I have read some of the ICPP papers. They claim that over the last
1000 to 2000 years the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has
fluctuated between about 3.2 and 3.6 molecules of CO2 for every 10,000
molecules of air. The fluctuation has been up and down but in that
range. We all understand what a "greenhouse" effect is so that plays
pretty well on the surface. But what I need to see is the mechanism
that explains why such a miniscule change in the concentration of CO2
is expected to have such a large effect on the global climate.

-Doug

We mustn’t question everything but follow the oracles that live on
government climate change grants and carbon credits. All religions
require faith and sacrifice.

On Dec 24, 2:16*am, gander wrote:
The
only people who are aware of the data and are not yet convinced of the
truth of the slow-disaster that is global warming and the consequent
eco-system collapse and extinctions are intellectually dishonest,
genuinely mentally impaired, or sociopaths.

Can you refute my earlier posts, or the articles I've linked to, or
would you simply like to stick to sniping at character?

Btw, wasn't the climate disaster foretold in the 70's just a bit
different? Being intellectually dishonest, mentally impaired AND a
sociopath, I don't even trust what I tell myself I think I recall.
But at least I haven't spent an entire career living at taxpayer
expense.

Btw, Merry Christmas.

Tango-eight, over & out.