If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
contrails | No Name | Aviation Photos | 3 | June 22nd 07 01:47 PM |
Contrails | Darkwing | Piloting | 21 | March 23rd 07 05:58 PM |
Contrails | Kevin Dunlevy | Piloting | 4 | December 13th 06 08:31 PM |
Contrails | Steven P. McNicoll | Piloting | 17 | December 10th 03 10:23 PM |