Is there a meteorological Keystone?

[Lapin Dormant]

Is there a meteorological Keystone?

So, which of all of the meteorological phenomenons is the Keystone?

Is it Snowfall, as in the absence of Snowfall, No more reflection of solar Heating back into space, that will contribute to the planets heating as to push it over the Critical point and cause MAJOR Climate change?

Is it the Heating of the Oceans, wherein it is Now recorded that the Sea Surface Temperatures have increased slightly, will slightly More be what pushes it over the edge?

Is there an 'Edge' to be Pushed over? Is there a Keystone in it all, at all?

Is it atmospheric Change? ie Gas content, composition, Quantity or other?

Other, any other?

 

[Andre]

I'll take some time to answer this, so if you want to get the idea, it may be an idea to click the links.

First of all we have the Hadley convection cell systems around the equator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Cell

The mechanism causes the tropical rain forests around the equator and the deserts around the equinoxes. A clear and simple system, ever so easy.

Now let's activate google earth, my most favorite toy by far, and let's fly to the http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/amazon.JPG here, looking down from 10 miles altitude at the given position.

(It's shame that the img feature doesn't seem to work here)

Take a good note of the barely visible but abundant run off valleys in sort of fishbone patterns. There is a lot of water falling that needs to be drained.

Now let's fly to http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/sahara.JPG and have a good look also at 10 miles altitude

See the almost identical structure of runoff channels feeding that major river? Only the colors are quite different. So where are we? 28.5 North, 002 East, that happens to be death centre of the Sahara, hasn't seen a drop of water in years.

Of course that area has been investigated, dating of artefacts reveals that those river features were still active some 10,000 years ago, holding the Hadley cell system in utmost contempt. It simply can't be but it is.

Now you tell me what a meteorological keystone is?

Le soleil?

 

[Lapin Dormant]

O.k.

A Meteorological Keystone is a Weather phenonmenon that is key to the rest, like salinity of the Oceans, Temperature, atmospheric mixing rates, etc. anyone of those that the rest of the systems depend upon occurring as to ensure that they continue.

Snow in the Arctic and Antarctic reflects heat back into space, and the Amount of energy required to subliminate that snow to water vapor is higher then if it were rain falling there needing to be returned as vapor. So it follows that the timing changes if you use water rather then Snow as the source of Vapor, it also follows that the land will absorb more heat when there is No snowpack to reflect back heat values.

This link differs with your estimation of the Saharas time http://library.thinkquest.org/16645/the_land/saha_cl.shtml (from library.thinkquest.org)

Nice links though, 'cept the one for the river, comes up so dark I cannot tell anything from it, then again as I have seen such types of Photos many times in my life it is Unnessecary.

The deglaciation will have very important Impacts upon the lives of Many people, In Germany and elsewheres in the World where current water supplies come from Glacially fed rivers.

The fish in those rivers will disappear also, that is a Food source, gone.

Doesn't any of that tell you anything about what is to come?

Better yet, do you care about it's impact on People?

 

[Andre]

The Sahara's desert climate

The great neolithic wet period lasted from about 9,000 to 2,500 b.c., when much of the Sahara was habitable for humans. The plains and dunes in places must have been covered with grassland, with herds of ostrich, giraffe, elephants and various antelopes. In the highlands and in shallow basins on the plains several lakes formed, which supported fish, crocodile and hippopotamus.

and

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/Fezzan/fezzan_palaeoclim.html#1stHolwet



That German study is scaremongering. You can't predict with models, especially with wrong data for greenhouse gas effect, derived from erratic suppositions from the Pleistocene and the hockeystick (MBH98). If all the glaciers are melting and if it gets dry in Germany, we are all going to die. Now the suggestion is that if we stop burning fuel now, then it's all going to be rescued. Excusez le mot, but this is crap. Whether the concentration of CO2 in the air is 200 ppm 280 ppm or 560 ppm, it is not important. It has incredible little if any influence on the climate. If Europe is to be dried out, then nothing we can do can stop it. Hence it’s irrelevant what I think about it even if I live in the same area

Note, by the way that the TAR of the IPCC predicts increasing moist climate with increasing CO2. So what are all those predictions worth?

I hope to have a little study published soon in which is shown that there might be a slight negative correlation R2=0,20 between CO2 and temperature in the newest data available for the period 1000-1500 AD while another proxy shows R2’s of 0,02. In other words no statistic significance.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Please do not assume things

Glacial Melt is a Fact of life, Many Scientist have observed it, it is very real, that you seem to wish it away, isn't going to stop it. Best last stat I saw was. 97% of the Planets' Glaciers are receding, QUICKLY.

Stop burning Fuel? that would be insane as the vast majority of People on the Planet get their FOOD delivered to them by TRUCK, so please show me where you have decided that I am against, or wanting to stop, burning Fuel, cause I have NEVER stated that.

What I have driven towards is the 'Better safe then sorry' principal that tells us that ALL of the WASTE of thermal Energy that WE ALL are currently Doing needs be curtailed to the Best of our Collective Ability.

That and we need to Find, as in Scientific Research and Discovery, New, and Better ways, manners, and means of accomplishing the things we are presently doing at too great a FUEL cost.

We could easily CUT OUT the Dryer, and use clothes lines again, we could easily stop the wasting of HOT water as we are currently Quite Guilty of, cut out the Wastes of Energy that are currently going on.

I am going to go find a Link for you, as I suspect you NEED to read it.

LD
Be Right Back[/color]

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Please go read this article, better yet get the actual Publication as it contains a Very Good Explanitory Graph of what it is Talking about.

And since you seem to like Pictures, just as a Lark the picture at this link (from the same Magazine) is a Very, exceptionally, Beautiful Place, where I have been, the one at the very top of the page.

Thanks

 

[Mk]

Glacial Melt is a Fact of life, Many Scientist have observed it, it is very real, that you seem to wish it away, isn't going to stop it. Best last stat I saw was. 97% of the Planets' Glaciers are receding, QUICKLY.

According to a new study published in the online edition of Science (couldn't find it though, maybe someone else could | Jan 2002?), the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice between 1992 and 2003. The ice sheets are several kilometers thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice.

Using data from the European Space Agency's radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, a research team from the University of Missouri, Columbia, measured changes in altitude over about 70% of Antarctica's interior. East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimeters per year over the time period studied.

The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica 's total land area and about 85% of the total ice volume. The area in question covers more than ~2.75 million square miles - roughly the same size as the United States.

The Antarctic Ice Sheet covers ~five million square miles. The Greenland Ice Sheet covers another ~700,000 square miles. Combined, they're twice as big as the contiguous United States. Combined, they're 100 times bigger than all the rest of the world's glaciers put together.
Glaciers are growing in other areas, too. Some glaciers on Canada's Baffin Island are as large or larger than at any time during the past 33,000 years, according to some studies.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html (requires registration)
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/science/20ICE.html&OP=1f25dc7Q2FQ7CsoQ3CQ7Cw-mMY--qQ2FQ7CQ2FiiPQ7CiPQ7CQ2FiQ7CMmQ7BoQ5DmoQ7CQ2FiBQ2BbKZqd8 (requires registration)
http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.html[/URL]
[PLAIN]http://www.niwascience.co.nz/pubs/mr/archive/2005-08-30-1[/URL]
[url]http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/arcticice_decline.html[/url]

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Making the case for me

According to a new study published in the online edition of Science (couldn't find it though, maybe someone else could | Jan 2002?), the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice between 1992 and 2003. The ice sheets are several kilometers thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice.

That is the Ice sheet, mass, that lost that tremendous Slab, several years back, the one that floated out to sea and Melted completely.

Originally found at www.sepp.org
The growth of Norway's glaciers is unparalleled, as most of the world's glaciers are melting as a result of global warming. In the Alps, glaciers have melted to about half of their size since the 1850s.

Originally found at www.niwascience.co.nz
"The recent gains do not compensate for the large overall losses seen over the past century. The iconic Franz Josef glacier is still much shorter now than in 1900, and the volume of ice in the Southern Alps dropped by about 25-30% last century. This is linked to an increase in regional mean temperatures of 0.7°C."

Globally, most glaciers are retreating as the Earth warms. Of the glaciers for which there are continuous data from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, the mean annual loss in ice thickness since 1980 remains close to half a metre per year. The Service has said that the loss in ice mass "leaves no doubt about the accelerating change in climatic conditions".

Originally found at www.nasa.gov
On Sept. 21, 2005, sea ice extent dropped to 2.05 million sq. miles, the lowest extent yet recorded in the satellite record. Incorporating the 2005 minimum using satellite data going back to 1978, with a projection for ice growth in the last few days of this September, brings the estimated decline in Arctic sea ice to 8.5 percent per decade over the 27 year satellite record.

As I had stated, roughly 97% of the Worlds Glaciers are receding, you have made the case for that. The 3% that are Not receding Does NOT invalidate that fact.

In the end the 'Snowflake' itself might just be the 'Keystone' inasmuch as if we arrive at a point where it no longer snows, we might just be in HUGE trouble, those Hadley Cells might just start going farther North, and South as the Dense Cold air that is presently there preventing that, will be gone, that that might set off a Circumpolar vortex and a resultant precipitously quick cooling might just plunge us, Collectively, into the Next Ice Age.

No one knows it completely, yet, for certain, but the Signs are there to tell us that it is better that we be wary of what we do, now.

Just my Opinion.

 

[Andre]

Just a minute, Schlafendes Kaninchen,

There are two unaccounted jumps in your reasoning. (melting is warming and warming means: do something)

The glaciers are melting, so it is warming? Not necesarily, the Kilimanjaro area has not been warming, yet the glacier melts due to increasing aridness:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14287
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/CSPP-PP-Summer-04.pdf

Several areas in Patagonia and Alaska report adjacent glaciers behaving differently, one melting, the other growing. But then again nobody, who has read some climate papers, doubts that it is warming.

++If these continue to recede to nil, the result will be disasterous++

Certainly but why would we think that and what can we do about it? Cutting back GHG emissions? Again that's the same as rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic. We can only hope that the trend will reverse again as it did in the 1950's the 1920's the 1880's the 1820's, notably after 1200 AD when the Vikings still scatched their head, why on Earth they had named that now glacier-covered island "Greenland" earlier, around 900 AD. Where did all those the glaciers come from?

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Honigbär is that you?

Just a minute, Schlafendes Kaninchen,
There are two unaccounted jumps in your reasoning. (melting is warming and warming means: do something)
The glaciers are melting, so it is warming? Not necesarily, the Kilimanjaro area has not been warming, yet the glacier melts due to increasing aridness:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14287
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/CSPP-PP-Summer-04.pdf
Several areas in Patagonia and Alaska report adjacent glaciers behaving differently, one melting, the other growing. But then again nobody, who has read some climate papers, doubts that it is warming.
++If these continue to recede to nil, the result will be disasterous++
Certainly but why would we think that and what can we do about it? Cutting back GHG emissions? Again that's the same as rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic. We can only hope that the trend will reverse again as it did in the 1950's the 1920's the 1880's the 1820's, notably after 1200 AD when the Vikings still scatched their head, why on Earth they had named that now glacier-covered island "Greenland" earlier, around 900 AD. Where did all those the glaciers come from?

O.K. Honigbär, By The Way I am Awake, but the reasoning follows that the Oceans temperatures ARE rising, ie the Bleaching of the Corals, the measured Sea Surface temperatures.

Your analogy of rearranging the Titanics Deck Chairs as comparable to trying to Lower GHG is exactly what you seem to have accused others of doing a Strawman Argument.

the GHG's might just be a Keystone Property of the Environment, no one knows for certain one way or the other, but the indicators are pointing to the idea that it is a Climatic changing property.

As for the Historic occurrences of climate changes, not many people would have been affected by them inasmuch as in the 1800's there were only 1 Billion people on the planet, 2 billion by 1900, 6.5 Billion now and Counting, so the Effects of Climate change Now are far more likely to have MUCH Greater impact, and consequence, then ever before.

Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic would not have stopped it going down, REDUCING the amounts of GHG's we generate into the systems WILL make a Difference, and not just the GHG's but the HEAT, the sheer amount of Heat we generate on a regular, and daily, basis, that would help substantially.

If your still unsure of what GHG's COULD do, look at the temperature of Venus.

signed "Schlafendes Kaninchen"

 

[Andre]

"Honigbär? Mais non, c'est http://www.page4page.de/tours/tour75.htm

Tomorrow I'll explain more about ocean processes and multiple catastrophic oceanic extinctions without help of mankind, but for now enjoy the http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/meebezig.doc

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Bear with me, as I hop along?

O.K. so Honigbär lesend, if you and I had been on the Titanic, and you had shown me a quick calculation that you had done {And I knew you well enough to respect and TRUST your math skills} that showed that throwing the Deck chairs off of the Boat would extend it's 'sinking time' {slow it down} by Five minutes, know what I would be doing, next?

So far this is a bit like the two of us are standing in a tunnel, we can see a light at the other end of the tunnel, {Normally a Good sign "A Light at the end of the tunnel"} we hear a very-Very soft 'ooo-ooo' sound, me, I take the two indicators together to mean that they is a HIGH likelyhood that a train is coming, time to get off of the track, you? you seem to need more convincing.

Wait to long, and you won't be able to get off of the track, in time.

I had seen reported {newspaper} that some scientists had done a study that drew a Coorelation between the rain that seemed to come every weekend, and the driving of cars for only the other five days of the week. It was a Highly statisical coorelation, based upon, if I recall it properly, the heat that the cars generated during the five weekdays, so it wasn't, or isn't deemed as "A Proof" but you can see that certain factors can be related to what we are doing, anthromorphic causation as to be able, due to the VERY large number of "US" to have effects upon the weather.

As for 'referencing' that study, I'll give up, now.

I am not advocating a 'Chicken Little' approach, but I am trying to advocate caution, reduction of known climatological affective factors, and simply Common Sense in proceeding forward in Humanities path as we are, and can be, very clearly, a very destructive species.

It is Good Sense to not waste, and our current Regime, manner of getting things done, is very wasteful.

O.K.?

"Bear with little Brain" I didn't read the story yet, but that is most certainly not descriptive of you, but 'Honigbär lesend' is descriptive of your avatar, and I do like x-country skiing.

Will read your Venus work a little later as it is getting dark and it's not safe for Rabbits to be out to late at night, especially sleepy rabbits.


LD
Looks around, turtles still not back yet, 'who will I talk to at night' he wonders, wanders off, to go back to sleep[/color]

 

[Mk]

That is the Ice sheet, mass, that lost that tremendous Slab, several years back, the one that floated out to sea and Melted completely.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/03/19/new.iceberg/
In 2002, an iceberg about 80 kilometers long and wide calved off Antarctica.

Seemingly contradictory announcements have appeared to support claims of both warming and cooling trends in the region.

Only long-term, worldwide studies can confirm global warming, its causes and likely effects, scientists say.

As I had stated, roughly 97% of the Worlds Glaciers are receding, you have made the case for that. The 3% that are Not receding Does NOT invalidate that fact.

Originally from the New York Times:
"the surface of eastern Antarctica appears to be slowly growing higher, by about 1.8 centimeters a year"

"The accumulation occurring across 2.75 million square miles of eastern Antarctica corresponds to a gain of 45 billion tons of water a year"

"The new study is 'another piece of the puzzle that we're still putting together,' said Dr. Waleed Abdalati, head of the cryospheric sciences branch at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt."

Oh no, I have to go.

Be safe,
With likeness,
Mk

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Certainly but why would we think that and what can we do about it? Cutting back GHG emissions? Again that's the same as rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic. We can only hope that the trend will reverse again as it did in the 1950's the 1920's the 1880's the 1820's, notably after 1200 AD when the Vikings still scatched their head, why on Earth they had named that now glacier-covered island "Greenland" earlier, around 900 AD. Where did all those the glaciers come from?

Snowfall.

Just so we note it properly, those events mostly took place during, or around, the industrial revolution, BUT in this age we have approx 500,000,000 cars, and trucks, running DAILY, Airplanes, ships, Nuclear reactors (Use 'Google Earth' and see if you can find a Photo of the Heat plume that they give off, water heating too, specific Heat of one) Housing being heated, offices air conditioned, and LOTS of other heating sources that have never existed previous to these days, so it isn't all that implausible that we can, and are, affecting the environment, not just by the additions of GHG's but also by the Amount of heat we are generating, in all of these activities.


LD
Gotta go, KFC's a Callin me, a Carnivourous Rabbit I am[/color]

 

[Andre]

Ah, ein fleischessendes kaninchen?

As I said in the other thread I have a few pages of ponderings that I lost here. See my new thread tomorrow, addressing those features you mention earlier.

 

[Mk]

Snowfall.

Just so we note it properly, those events mostly took place during, or around, the industrial revolution, BUT in this age we have approx 500,000,000 cars, and trucks, running DAILY, Airplanes, ships, Nuclear reactors (Use 'Google Earth' and see if you can find a Photo of the Heat plume that they give off, water heating too, specific Heat of one) Housing being heated, offices air conditioned, and LOTS of other heating sources that have never existed previous to these days, so it isn't all that implausible that we can, and are, affecting the environment, not just by the additions of GHG's but also by the Amount of heat we are generating, in all of these activities.

Ha ha well anyway.

Most heat is caused by fires in Africa, where dry brush has been hit by lightning. There's no people there to put the fires out so they go on and on for a loooonnnnnggggg time, and spread to huge proportions.

I'm skeptical of heat plumes from nuclear fission reactors... I'm pretty sure that is comprised of steam and radioactive particulates. Those of which are about a hundred times (?? I forget the figure, but it was substantially less) less powerful than an X-ray from your doctor.

Ahh here it is. Nuclear power average dose for the general public, asuming normal operation, normal exposure, a population of 218 million people in the US, is about 0.04 millirems, whereas from medical diagnostics, it is 85 millirems. That's 2125 times higher!

Figures from the revised BEIR-III "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionzing Radiation: 1980" National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C., 1980.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Balancing the 'Smog'

Andre, I will cede to you that the current Warm Period could simply be the Statistical pattern that evolves from the history of the Suns' Own Sun-Spot 'Cyclic' (11 and-or 22 years?) and the Earths' apparent, (as per the Historic record, it is Not an Exact match, but close enough to show Pattern) Five year Time lag, in demonstrating/emitting the exposure to the extra heating 'experience' it had gotten from the Suns' Own Sun-spot activity.

But your statement that More CO₂ pumped into the atmosphere will NOT make any more or less of a Difference, that one defies physical Chemistry as it is Known that equal Volumes of a Greater and Lesser Density of Mass will radiate/emit off their heat at different rates as a Greater Density (mass as well, as in this case the Volumes are equalled) has a Higher heat capacity, from that the Notion that the heat Re-iterative rate of CO₂ must be longer on any given equal volume then either O₂or N₂ the other primary two constituents of atmospheric gasses, thus additions are seen as increasing Heat 'Retention' rates as they take Longer to radiate, given though that this is all mediated by Sinks and Brushs (Oceans-Waters & Trees-Vegetation, respectively) for CO₂ that 'wash out' the Atmosphere of CO₂, not all-'all' that well understood, as Complete, that too could have a threshold point of overburden or abundance as to be causative of an even longer delay in the Solar Sun-spot reaction reduction.. .. ..

So your statement of:

Now the suggestion is that if we stop burning fuel now, then it's all going to be rescued. Excusez le mot, but this is crap. Whether the concentration of CO2 in the air is 200 ppm 280 ppm or 560 ppm, it is not important. It has incredible little if any influence on the climate.

Contextually clipped[/color]

Works out to be somewhat misleading, as it disguises the "partiality of truth" that permits it to be seen as truthful, it is somewhat fallacious.. .. ..defying Physical Chemistries' Principals, rules, laws, as a solute in a solution that is denser and therefore more Heat radiant retarded in comparison to the rest of the Solution, must be known as capable of changing any "heating retention capacities"

After that, that the Hadley Cells could start a Patternistic increase as to, over much time, By tornadic equatorial spin increase, generate a kind of Circumpolar circulation, offset, over the Usually developing Pressure Front, that forms, Irregularity, yet frequently enough as to be noteworthy, over the Northern Regions of Quebec, in Canada, could be the centre in which a "Gravitational Well" type of Schematic, (Superimpose the Grid system Used in 'Grav Well' Diagrams) meaning a depression, could be super-imposed upon the atmosphere, thus super-imposed upon the Planets face, some miles up, from that it is seen that it is, in that atmospheric face, a 'Depression' (Physical) noteworthy, inasmuch as, that increases the Atmospheres' Surface Area to being exposed to the Cold of Outer Space, and Lessens (By reduction of Depth) that insulative Quality of the Atmosphere, itself, thus we could easily envision that last Ice Ages' Glacial Formation.

To believe that Just CO₂ as sole culprit would also not be 'Quite so smart' a Myopic view-point, yet in the similar Myopic view-point, I had noticed a Helicopter flying overhead yesterday, it's "appearance" to me as it came into my view seemed to be very "sudden" as it seemed to just appear "out of the Mist" Photochemical Smog is really what it was, and that is the Point because I had watched it fly back in the direction it had come from, shortly thereafter, and watched carefully this time to see just how far I could see it go prior to it's vanishing from my view altogether, it appeared to be about six miles before it completely vanished into the mist-Photochemical Smog above, No I couldn't see the Horizon line either, Yes, it was yet another "Weather Smog Alert Day"

Still don't see the reason why, to try, Now, to cut down on Wasteful emissions?

So Hadley Cells comprise the Two Bottom Building Blocks, of the Archway, on the way up we see other blocks, Hydrological Cycles and Atmospheric Chemistry, at work, then we look to the top, where we see Snow, COPY-CUT-INVERT-PASTE and we have a Nice circle.

As Investigators, we must insure that neither of us holds that Magnifying Glass 'too long' on any given place, lest that our absorption with those Tiny details, sidetracks us, too long, and we thereby let the stone be, get, 'over-heated' by our glass of prolonged introspection, such that that stone collapses in a series of culminatory Catastrophic Events.

"The only thing that is Permanent, is Change" therefore if We would wish to collectively hold some semblance of our own Permanence, we too need know how, and when, to change.

For the First assertion of the implications of the Five year time lag on the Suns' Solar Cyclic upon us, we will Know that answer, in Five years time wiht way better certainty.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Heat, Not EMR as such

I'm skeptical of heat plumes from nuclear fission reactors... I'm pretty sure that is comprised of steam and radioactive particulates. Those of which are about a hundred times (?? I forget the figure, but it was substantially less) less powerful than an X-ray from your doctor.
Ahh here it is. Nuclear power average dose for the general public, asuming normal operation, normal exposure, a population of 218 million people in the US, is about 0.04 millirems, whereas from medical diagnostics, it is 85 millirems. That's 2125 times higher!
Figures from the revised BEIR-III "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionzing Radiation: 1980" National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C., 1980.

Mk I was talking about the coolant water that is Dispenced with from cooling the reactor's generating system, the HEAT purge, NOT the radiation-EMR.

I have been to a Reactor site, was told of how that reactor, situated next to a River to obtain water supplies, had been able to keep the Rivers surface Open for the Entirety of the Winter, a Hole, in the Ice that normally Frooze SOLID-formed there, simply becuse of the Purging of heated (NOT radio-active) water from the reactors system.

 

[Andre]

Why is there smog? Because we let it, not cleaning the exhaust gasses. That's slightly different than reducing emissions.

Furthermore, haven't I stated in the other thread what the clean physical properties are of doubling CO2, about 0,7 degrees using the Arrhenius and Stefan Boltzman laws.

Having correlated the newest CO2 proxies with temperature proxies http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/correlation-stomata-co2.GIF produces either statistic garbage (down left) or a slightly negative trend (down right) however with little statistical significance. Which shows again that the relationship between CO2 and temperatures is overshadowed by noise and hence it's insignificant.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Hot? cold? up? down?

Your modeled(?) projections show that the Increase in CO₂ has shown a Decrease in temperature, or a potential for a decrease (which one please) in temperature, as a Decrease in temperature by increasing CO₂ Concentrations would mean that it is acting like an insulative blanket keeping out the Solar Input that normaly heats the surface, and therefore icreasing CO₂ concentrations must be reflecting back into space more of the otherwise available solar energies, correct?

As for the Smog, "our fault" how else could it be? so yes, but because we DO NOT cut back on emissions, photochemical 'soup' smog.

And hows about the idea that there is a threshold of CO₂ concentrations that thereafter precipitates a major Shift in any, or one, of the given 'cyclics' that maintains our collective climate? any good studies and or 'models' of that possiblity?

 

[Andre]

No, not models, reality. Plain measurements and reconstruction. The temperature sequence between the years 1000AD and 1500AD as reconstructed from multiple proxies (Moberg et al 2005) against the CO2 variation as been reconstructed from two leaf stomata sequences, correlated against two ice cores. (Wagner et al 2004, Kouwenberg et al 2005) Ref are in that other post.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Cool, so.. .. .. ..

.. .. .. Andre, is the excess amount of CO₂ that, according to the Stats you showed me, is seemingly generating a cooling, actually doing so by manner of Sink activity, as in, the Heat that it would have otherwise generated is being sunk into the Carbon sink, the Oceans and waters, thereby causing them to rise in temperature, slooowly, rather then the atmosphere itself showing the more immediate heating? is that possible?

Perhaps conducting even more heat then would otherwise have been sunk there, as to be Cooling the Atmosphere to the seen greater degree.?
(A Punishing statement)

If so, then the heat will eventually escape, and then become a prevelant artifice of the Meteorlogical systems?

Further Andre cutting emission cuts Smog factors simply because cutting emmissions reduces opportunity, potentials, for other "chemistry" to occur, in the Atmosphere, correct?

Andre is the Cooling that your stats show really a result of the CO₂ excesses causing the Atmosphere to inflate, and thereby increase it's cooling, by surface area increases, so we see that cooling resultant for the excesses of CO₂ that belie the reality of it's thermal capacity, and it's apparent generation, creation in exothermal reactions such as to have somewhat blinded our ability to realize that, it is, none the less, a Thermally potent, GHG?

 

[Andre]

No, Spící králík or perhaps, spiaci zajac. All that I did was comparing new data (2004, 2005) that lead to new reconstructions. The result thereof is that we cannot see a clear CO2 signal in there that correlates with temperature. No more, that's it.

Note that the CO2 variation was much larger in the leaf stomata and the ice cores. Something like 20-40ppm variation versus some 5 ppm. But they do correlate. The reason for this is that open icy snow on top of the ice sheet remains open for air to move around freely before it gets locked in the bubbles. This means that the CO2 signal gets contaminated as a mixture of several years.

But the correlation is as good as the reliability of those proxies. It just doesn't support CO2 as being a strong factor of climate, no more.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

and we heard.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ?

.. .. .. .. to you first line, Which is why I asked if it was possible that it had Disappeared into the Water, as per sink activity. (the heat)

As to your last line, O.K. .. .. .. .. So far.. .. .. .. O.K.?

LD
Now I hafta go find out what these mean "Spící králík" & "spiaci zajac" so so long for Noooooowwwwwwww[/color]

 

[Andre]

Your guess is as good as mine. But I've learned that guessing too early is very dangerous. It fixes the mind and prevents creativity. That's forensic thinking.

"Spící králík" & "spiaci zajac" are Czech and Slowakian for slapend konijn.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

"Spící králík" & "spiaci zajac" are Czech and Slowakian for slapend konijn.

Tu droit eté certain du ça.

I find that "guessing to early" simply gives reason to investigate, with an Open Mind, Naturellement

LD
.. .. .. .. Hops off to go look up those funny spellings .. .. .. .. ..[/color]

 

[Andre]

Tu droit eté certain du ça

Mais oui, c'est sûr, mon copain. c'est-à-dire, je crois ça, si mon ami tchèque ne mente pas

Again, "guessing too early" is counter productive. It's psychological. You want to be the first to solve a case. So you have a hint and you guess, that's called a hypothesis. Now the scientific method requires that you continue finding more facts supporting your hypothesis. make predictions and see if your hypothesis works. But it is yours, the hypothesis and you're proud of it. At this point it becomes very difficult to accept from conflicting evidence that your hypothesis must have been wrong, and the natural tendency is to remain on the original mindset and try and find more and more awkward explanations.

Thinking out of the box is what you do if you're able to drop the whole thing, add the new evidence to the existing data, sort out what are facts and what are (suspect ro wrong) conclusions, what is important, what has been distorted and what is posteriority. Then start all over again trying to think of completely new ways. I find it helpfull considering the opposite.

 

[Ophiolite]

But it still makes sense to step off the tracks in case it is a train.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Guess what?

Mais oui, c'est sûr, mon copain. c'est-à-dire, je crois ça, si mon ami tchèque ne mente pas
Again, "guessing too early" is counter productive. It's psychological. You want to be the first to solve a case. So you have a hint and you guess, that's called a hypothesis. Now the scientific method requires that you continue finding more facts supporting your hypothesis. make predictions and see if your hypothesis works. But it is yours, the hypothesis and you're proud of it. At this point it becomes very difficult to accept from conflicting evidence that your hypothesis must have been wrong, and the natural tendency is to remain on the original mindset and try and find more and more awkward explanations.
Thinking out of the box is what you do if you're able to drop the whole thing, add the new evidence to the existing data, sort out what are facts and what are (suspect ro wrong) conclusions, what is important, what has been distorted and what is posteriority. Then start all over again trying to think of completely new ways. I find it helpfull considering the opposite.

And here I was thinking that all I was doing was following "Logical thought" to see if it arrived anywheres near the reality.

Proud of What? a Thought? not likely.

It simply follows if the CO₂ is released in an exothermic reaction, added to the Solution of Gasses, and the temperature of the Solution of Gasses goes down, or stays flat, that the Heat that was there, went somewhere {Law of Conservation of Energy} so we then look to where the CO₂ concentrations went, we see it invloves the Oceans as they are acknowledged Sinks for CO₂ concentrations, so we deduce that the heat MIGHT be going there, with the CO₂ Gas.

Not all that difficult, it is a Conjecture needing verification though, no question of that, and it does NOT close My Mind to anything else, inclusive of the Possiblity of it being Completley WRONG.

Not on EGO drive, more like Intelligent Introspection and follow through, so specifically it isn't really a "Guess" as that assertion borders intellectual insult {No, I am NOT insulted by it} in it's missed targeting of the Method of Solution. O.K.?

Anyways, Tres Bien, Bonne Journe, a la Prochaine.

LD
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. {check ça! pas du merde, cette fois}[/color]

 

[Andre]

prenez garde, lapin, il n'y a pas d'engrais ici.

I think I have pointed out multiple times that the physical strenght of CO2 as greenhouse gas is very small. Perhaps try this tread about that:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=62529

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Neeeeeeeext quest-i-on

I think I have pointed out multiple times that the physical strenght of CO2 as greenhouse gas is very small. Perhaps try this tread about that:

Yes I see that, as a Point of it absorbing radiant sunlight, but what about the heat that it evolved with, from it's initial combustion, where did that go?

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Having thought about your explanation of how it "won't get any redder" (by mixing in More dye) it strikes me as somewhat specious, inasmuch as, in physical chemistry when you add more dye to the solution the amount of energy that it WILL absorb will increase relative to the amount of interactive molecular structures {dye} within the Solution, even if it has "gone opaque" to the radiant energy source.

It is simple enough to prove, if you had-have a miscible enough Mixture, you could, by addition of enough of the solute, give rise to the Complete Blocking of passage, through the solution, of any radiant energy source.

So it should still heat, and increase in heating given greater percentages, PPM levels, but I would agree that it's input may not be relative enough to heat the atmosphere, substantially.

Then again it could still be disappearing into the Oceans as there seems to be evidence that they are heating, a recent issue of the Journal Science (Cover story "Science in Iraq") has two articles on the Current readings, heating and Salinity.

 

[Andre]

So what did I say exactly?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=62529

Fill glasses with a little water and put a few drops of red or yellow ink in the second one (leave the first one). After stirring the water will be colored slightly Right? Now drop double as much drops in the third one, and double that in the fourth glass and so on.
Now compare the brightness of the glasses. See that the biggest difference in color is between glass one (no ink) and two. See that there is almost no difference in color between glass four and five, despite the ample difference in ink amount. That's saturation. You can continue dropping more ink in it but the color won't hardly change any more, because the light frequency band that is absorpted gets saturated. There is hardly any more light in that frequency to be absorpted, no matter how much ink you add.

So did I say?:

"won't get any redder"

and then continue to argue that it still does. But that's what I said, so the fallacy you have just set up is the "straw man" But never mind.

Be sure to check the http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html , using plain fair greenhouse gas physics, to see how that saturation works.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

cnt'd from above

Contextually extirpated[/color] and then continue to argue that it still does.

No I haven't agrued that "it still does" I have simply pointed out the Physical Chemistry that shows that Increasing the amount of Solute, in the Solution DOES effect it's ability to absorb energy.

Nothing more. Why?

Now the suggestion is that if we stop burning fuel now, then it's all going to be rescued. Excusez le mot, but this is crap. Whether the concentration of CO2 in the air is 200 ppm 280 ppm or 560 ppm, it is not important. It has incredible little if any influence on the climate.

Which states that increasing concentrations of CO₂ Gas do not make any difference, yet in your own arguement

Now compare the brightness of the glasses. See that the biggest difference in color is between glass one (no ink) and two. See that there is almost no difference in color between glass four and five, despite the ample difference in ink amount. That's saturation.[/color] You can continue dropping more ink in it but the color won't hardly change any more, because the light frequency band that is absorpted gets saturated. There is hardly any more light in that frequency to be absorpted, no matter how much ink you add.

You acknowledge that it does BECAUSE you NEED arrive at the Point of Satutration to demonstrate the, then limiting fact.

Ergo the Amount or concentration of CO₂ Gases does-do make a difference, but as I had already admitted,

So it should still heat, and increase in heating given greater percentages, PPM levels, but I would agree that it's input may not be relative enough to heat the atmosphere, substantially.[/color]

As for the FallacyPages, nice try. {strange link though}