On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Graydon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 06:39:52PM -0500, P. J. Alling scripsit: >>> It makes sense to try because the hotter it gets, the more violent >>> the weather gets and the drier (as a global average thing; Ontario is >>> likely going to get very wet for awhile) it gets. >> This is an unwarranted assumption with no particular basis in fact. >> The medieval warm period apparently had extremely mild weather, and >> the records point to it being actually warmer then than it is today. > > Cites from the peer reviewed literature, please? > > Especially for what, exactly, you consider the "medieval warm period".
Pole/Equator temperature differences are a major driver of significant storm activity, the warmer it gets the more this temperature differential is reduced. This actually tracks well with known storm activity, which has steadily decresed since the mid-70's. The Medieval Climate Optimum (aka warm period) is very well documented despite certain attempts to write it off, primarily by scientists who have been implicated in the recently discovered CRU frauds (Michael Mann being the most notable of these). > >>> If it gets much hotter or much drier, nasty things happen like "the >>> Asian monsoon rains only happen some years or shut down entirely". >> >> Once again unwaranted assumption. There's no record that this ever >> happened and it cannot be precdicted from current data. > > There certainly are records of this happening; monsoons *have* failed. > (This is the sort of thing Chinese imperial historians tended to write > down.) > > For instance, this year's monsoon is considered to have failed in India; > see: > <http://www.indianexpress.com/news/failed-monsoon-leads-to-largescale-migration-in-kutch-tehsils/542071/> > >>> It's hard to keep a civilization going without a consistent food supply. >>> Food supply is one of those things where you just have to deal with the >>> weather. >> >> Warm periods in the past coincided with a warm moist North Aferica. > > Moist North Africa in the Holocene corresponds with continental > glaciation, just like the existence of Lake Bonneville in the > North American inter-mountain West. Yes, that is another corresponence, but not the only one. > >>> Of course we can stop it. The two primary contributors are CO2 and >>> particulate carbon. The CO2 issue means no fossil carbon extraction and >>> the particulate carbon means no internal combustion engines or blast >>> furnaces. Umm, no, neither are significant, water vapour drives the vast majority of the greenhouse effect. >> >> Historical data doesn't actually back thus up, the warming trends seem >> to have no actual connection with Carbon Dioxide levels in the >> atmosphere. You might want to read a Physicists debunking of the >> Greenhouse Gas theory. It doesn't stand up to experiment. >> >> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf >> >> The above linked paper asserts that the greenhouse effect postulated for >> the atmosphere violates the second law of thermodynamics. Nothing >> violates the second law of thermodynamics. I knew that, but I never >> examined the assumptions in climatology. One or the other is a crock. >> I can't disprove the paper, and I can no longer accept the standard >> climate models. > > Said paper gets its thermo wrong. (Ask anyone who has taken advanced > thermo courses; physics profs get their thermo wrong all the time...) > > See > <http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html> > > Definitely see <http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324> where Arthur Smith > points out that we have a well-understood set of equations for the > temperature of a planetary body without an atmosphere, and lots of > observational data (the Moon, Mercury, etc.) to back that equation; it > predicts what we see. > > Earth is 33 C hotter than that equation predicts, so the atmospheric > greenhouse effect is observed, not postulated. (Also for Titan, though > much less well characterized in that case.) > > -- Graydon CO2 is not even close to being the primary driver of the greenhouse effect, the primary driver is Water Vapour. This is very well documented. And human CO2 emissions are a small fraction of atmospheric CO2. There's no good data that indicates that human emitted CO2 has a measurable effect on global temperature (The datasets which indicated it most strongly have been proven to be thoroughly compromised in the last few months, CRU by unrecorded normalization and cherry-picking along with reliance on tree-ring data which hasn't been considered indicative of temperature or atmospheric conditions by biologists in over a decade and Hadley by cherry-picking of Russian data stations). Note that global warming from the mid-70's to 1998 is very real. There has been essentially none since 1998 according to satellite data (essentially the only good data left now that the two remaining good surface datasets have been shown to have significant issues) and we've seen a drop-off over the last two years almost assuredly due to reduced solar activity (thankfully solar activity is trending back up over the last 6 months). -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
