contrails

On Jan 8, 7:11*pm, bildan wrote:
On Jan 8, 5:57*pm, Mark Jardini wrote:





I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.

Mark Jardini

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/*If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
space.

Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.

my house sits at 650 ft msl.............I got it made...............

Brad

On Jan 9, 4:11*pm, bildan wrote:
The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/*If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

Fortunately for us, it didn't melt even in periods in history when it
was not only much warmer than now, but also much warmer than anything
currently predicted with any level of seriousness.

On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini wrote:



Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

As long as he is not being sponsored by the Oil or Coal Industries, I
would tend to believe him. The data he presents is accurate as far as
I can tell.

The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway, and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model? Global warming
or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
crusade, than hard science. That's not to say that we shouldn't
continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

Derek Copeland

On Jan 8, 7:57*pm, Mark Jardini wrote:
I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.

According to the Lake Tahoe Vacation Guide http://www.tahoevacationguide.com/laketahoe.html
it is 14 inches. 14 inches is geometrically/mathematically correct if
the entire state were at the same elevation. Calif is about 404,000
sq. km in projected area and Lake Tahoe contains about 39 trillion
gallons of water if one accepts the figures given. That would be
1.48e18 cubic cm / 4.04e16 square cm = 36.6 cm = about 14 inches. But
I would think that the peaks in elevation of California exceed the
valleys so in "reality" the lowland flooding would exceed 14" and
higher ground would be left dry - but that's a bit of a quibble.
Thinking of it as 14" is just fine for illustration.

Regards,

-Doug (It must be winter or why would I bother doing the math?) ;-)

On Jan 9, 4:27*am, delboy wrote:
On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini wrote:



Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

As long as he is not being sponsored by the Oil or Coal Industries, I
would tend to believe him. The data he presents is accurate as far as
I can tell.

The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway, and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model? Global warming
or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
crusade, than hard science. That's not to say that we shouldn't
continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

Derek Copeland

Excellent observation. If one truly believed that human created CO2
is causing the damage that some claim, then the only rational action
would be for us all to immediately park our cars/trucks/airplanes etc.
and throw away the keys, and disconnect our houses/buildings from
electricity/gas.etc. The inconvenience of doing so would be small
compared to the advertised consequences of global climate
change. ...that is IF one truly believed.

Regards,

-Doug

Al Gore currently owns several rather large houses. Presumably they
are equipped with air conditioning, heating, lights, large screen TVs,
pool heaters, and so forth. But he says that's OK because he is (or
would) pay an offsetting "carbon credit tax" which I gather would go
towards reforestation or something equivalent. Is that like buying
your way into heaven? Gore would be much more credible, at least to
me, if he were to *both* downsize/mostly eliminate his energy-hogging
abodes and also contribute funds for reforestation etc. He certainly
has the money to do the latter. Meanwhile I watch what he does, not
what he says, and find his credibility on GCC to be questionable.

Regards,

-Doug

On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy wrote:
Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,

Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.


and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model?

No, of course not. This is another of your strawman points
in which you appear to put ridiculous words into the mouths
of reputable scientists.


Global warming
or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
crusade, than hard science.

Ditto denying global warming. Making strawman arguments
doesn't help the deniers' position.

That's not to say that we shouldn't
continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

There we agree.

On Jan 9, 2:19*am, brian whatcott wrote:
Mark Jardini wrote:

John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a

forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

Be fair: he does have an undergraduate degree in Journalism, after all.

Now I've got to clear the coffee off my keyboard.

On 9 Jan, 11:56, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy wrote:

Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,


Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.

So why isn't the extra CO2 in the atmosphere causing the predicted
increase in temperature? Could not any excess CO2 be removed by
planting more trees (or at least not chopping down the forests we
already have) anyway?

and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model?

No, of course not. This is another of your strawman points
in which you appear to put ridiculous words into the mouths
of reputable scientists.

Global warming
or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
crusade, than hard science.

Ditto denying global warming. Making strawman arguments
doesn't help the deniers' position.

That's not to say that we shouldn't
continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

There we agree.

OK, So how do you propose to correct things? Lets suppose we we only
generate electricity from solar panels, wind power, hydro-electric
dams, tidal barrages and nuclear energy, and that all vehicles are
electrically powered. First of all, a lot of exotic materials such as
rare earth metals and uranium would be required, which would all have
to be mined (environmentally destructive) and processed (heat energy
required). Then you need a lot of expensive new infrastructure, and a
means of safely disposing of nuclear waste. Finally I understand that
would not be enough available copper in the world to wind all the
generating sets and electric motors (wars over copper instead of
oil?). Could an electric airliner carry enough batteries to also carry
a useful payload? If it was nuclear powered, what would happen if it
crashed?

Alternatively we could go back to living in caves I suppose!

Derek Copeland

On Jan 9, 6:56*am, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy wrote:

Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,

Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.


Of course CO2 is a selective IR filter. That's basic physics.

The more interesting question is: what is the effect of changing the
atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense, and
increasing (or decreasing) its concentration has only tertiary and
probably unmeasurable effects on climate. There are weaker absorption
bands that may make a difference, but some/most(?) of these are in
areas of the spectrum where water vapor dominates completely as long
as water vapor is present.

"Of course it has been proven"? Well, yes, the agenda setters take
that view. It's regarded as a weak point of the AGW thesis by some.
It's an area that I think deserves particularly careful study, as this
is *the* key to the "A" in AGW.

-Evan Ludeman / T8