Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere First phrase, first lie. The single most important climate-relevant blah blah blah is water vapour, not CO2 by a great margin. It makes about 90% of the global warming effect. I mean that this is a lie because they supposedly are scientists and they must know it. Anyway, this is bad news for those that, like me, receive Exxon checks, we need more antropogenic alarmists ; This list is becoming truly about everything. 2013/6/15 spudboy...@aol.com It's amazing how much damage the Anthropogenic CO2 can do to the Solar Photosphere. ;-) -Original Message- From: smitra smi...@zonnet.nl To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 10:43 am Subject: Re: On Global WarmingThe sun is getting a little hotter Not assumed to be caused, but known to be caused. The science is clear, it's only that the vast majority of the population is science illiterate to the point that many people with university degrees in economics, engineering etc. don't know much about physics and are susceptible to the same nonsense as most lay persons. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full ABSTRACT Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state. It often is stated that water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere. For example, it has been asserted that ¡°about 98% of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and stratiform clouds with CO2 contributing less than 2%¡± (1). If true, this would imply that changes in atmospheric CO2 are not important influences on the natural greenhouse capacity of Earth, and that the continuing increase in CO2 due to human activity is therefore not relevant to climate change. This misunderstanding is resolved through simple examination of the terrestrial greenhouse. The difference between the nominal global mean surface temperature (TS = 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K) is a common measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS ¨C TE = 33 K). Assuming global energy balance, TE is also the Planck radiation equivalent of the 240 W/m2 of global mean solar radiation absorbed by Earth. The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth. Besides direct solar heating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then absorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both upward and downward directions, further heating the ground and maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere. This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4). These studies established long ago that water vapor and CO2 are indeed the principal terrestrial GHGs. Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one that controls climate change. CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not condense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that respond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precipitating. This identifies water vapor and clouds as the fast feedback processes in the climate system. Radiative forcing experiments assuming doubled CO2 and a 2% increase in solar irradiance (5) show that water vapor provides the strongest climate feedback of any of the atmospheric GHGs, but that it is not the cause (forcing) of global climate change. The response of the climate system to an applied forcing is determined to be the sum of the direct (no-feedback) response to the applied forcing and the induced radiative response that is attributable to the feedback process contributions. The ratio of the total climate response to the no-feedback response is commonly known as the feedback factor, which incorporates all the complexities of the climate system
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
Can we stop talking about religion? 2013/6/18 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere First phrase, first lie. The single most important climate-relevant blah blah blah is water vapour, not CO2 by a great margin. It makes about 90% of the global warming effect. I mean that this is a lie because they supposedly are scientists and they must know it. Anyway, this is bad news for those that, like me, receive Exxon checks, we need more antropogenic alarmists ; This list is becoming truly about everything. 2013/6/15 spudboy...@aol.com It's amazing how much damage the Anthropogenic CO2 can do to the Solar Photosphere. ;-) -Original Message- From: smitra smi...@zonnet.nl To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 10:43 am Subject: Re: On Global WarmingThe sun is getting a little hotter Not assumed to be caused, but known to be caused. The science is clear, it's only that the vast majority of the population is science illiterate to the point that many people with university degrees in economics, engineering etc. don't know much about physics and are susceptible to the same nonsense as most lay persons. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full ABSTRACT Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state. It often is stated that water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere. For example, it has been asserted that ¡°about 98% of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and stratiform clouds with CO2 contributing less than 2%¡± (1). If true, this would imply that changes in atmospheric CO2 are not important influences on the natural greenhouse capacity of Earth, and that the continuing increase in CO2 due to human activity is therefore not relevant to climate change. This misunderstanding is resolved through simple examination of the terrestrial greenhouse. The difference between the nominal global mean surface temperature (TS = 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K) is a common measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS ¨C TE = 33 K). Assuming global energy balance, TE is also the Planck radiation equivalent of the 240 W/m2 of global mean solar radiation absorbed by Earth. The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth. Besides direct solar heating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then absorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both upward and downward directions, further heating the ground and maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere. This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4). These studies established long ago that water vapor and CO2 are indeed the principal terrestrial GHGs. Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one that controls climate change. CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not condense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that respond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precipitating. This identifies water vapor and clouds as the fast feedback processes in the climate system. Radiative forcing experiments assuming doubled CO2 and a 2% increase in solar irradiance (5) show that water vapor provides the strongest climate feedback of any of the atmospheric GHGs, but that it is not the cause (forcing) of global climate change. The response of the climate system to an applied forcing is determined to be the sum of the direct (no-feedback) response to the applied forcing and the induced radiative response that is attributable to the feedback process contributions. The ratio of the total climate response to the no-feedback response is
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
On 6/18/2013 4:21 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere First phrase, first lie. The single most important climate-relevant blah blah blah is water vapour, not CO2 by a great margin. It makes about 90% of the global warming effect. Water has the greatest greenhouse effect, but that doesn't mean it is 'most important' in determining climate. Water vapor in the atmosphere stays very nearly in equilibrium with ocean surface temperature, so it is a feedback factor not a driver. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
On 17 Jun 2013, at 01:30, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip That people can initiate law is nice, though. I would like to initiate the prohibition of prohibition. Oops :) :-) What is freedom of speech without freedom of thought? When we upload ourselves it will be all the more clear that making certain substances illegal is tantamount to making certain computations (thoughts, ways of thinking, and states of consciousness) illegal. Yes, but we will have to do that. You would certainly not appreciate that I copy you, without noticing to you, and reconstitute you in my super-mac machine, and torture you, without your consent. You will even less appreciate that my lawyer defends me by saying: ---oh but that is just running a computation which in any case already exist in arithmetic. The problem is that by implementing it, I make it relatively normal (in the Gaussian sense) to you, and your suffering will be statistically stable from your point of view. So I think you will agree that some computations, done without consent (but that's part of that computation) will and should be illegal. Freedom of thought and mind do have some limit. Freedom of speech too, like defamation, bullying, all those sort of violence is usually illegal, for not bad reasons, I think. Now, we should not penalize non violent crimes, and as nobody complains about the salvia computation, there should be no reason to make such computation illegal, but again, we cannot dose people, that is, making them live a computation without their consent (which is the main golden rule). For some people salvia is a bit like a torture ... Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 16 Jun 2013, at 15:08, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I think Dyson is correct. My resentment is from the suspcion that it has been a generated 'rush to judgement. OK. I can understand. But, locally, we have only one planet here-and-now, so it is a (rare) case where the precaution principle applies, I think. Well before anyone get alarmed by the harm we can do to the planet and ourselves, Henry Ford asked why to build car in steel using the non renewable resources for the fuel, when we can do cars entirely with renewable plants (and he proved it, including the rentability). So we have plenty of ways to better manage life on this planet, including possible international taxation to offer a living to those exploiting forest, so as to preserve the maximal pool of genes on the planet. We can do it, so why don't we do it? Probably because we failed to separate the state from private interests and corporatism. Maybe people should vote for political programs *only*, then politicians should be man and woman doing a social service, and would govern following the idea the people voted for, no matter what they have voted themselves. Something like that. But that's for the long run. Today, I don't believe the politics will improve as long as we maintain the criminal prohibition hoax, which makes the whole middle class into hostage of bandits. Good points. There is actually such a movement in the US for voting on issues directly by the public: http://www.ncid.us/ It seems like passage of such an initiative may be the only way to free ourselves from the current system. It seems to be little known today, but in the early Roman republic people voted directly on laws themselves (not just their representatives). Jason Bruno -Original Message- From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:24 pm Subject: Re: On Global WarmingThe sun is getting a little hotter Coincidentally I came across this wikipage of Freeman Dyson quotes today: - My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. *The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.* It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models. - Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society, in *Edge* (8 August 2007)http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf - I believe global warming is grossly exaggerated as a problem. *It's a real problem, but it's nothing like as serious as people are led to believe.* The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It distracts people's attention from much more serious problems. - Interview in *Salon* (29 September 2007)http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/09/29/freeman_dyson/ - All the books that I have seen about the science and the economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. ... Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. - *The New York Review of Books* (12 June 2008) What do others think about his comments? Are his critiques valid? Jason On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 5:15 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Bret, there was a study from the University of Waterloo which holds, not CO2 but CFC's as the primary villain in AGW. Before this both methane and carbon dust, have been identified as well as your old buddy, CO2. The abatement in global heating may also be coming from the world
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 16 Jun 2013, at 17:28, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 16 Jun 2013, at 15:08, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I think Dyson is correct. My resentment is from the suspcion that it has been a generated 'rush to judgement. OK. I can understand. But, locally, we have only one planet here-and-now, so it is a (rare) case where the precaution principle applies, I think. Well before anyone get alarmed by the harm we can do to the planet and ourselves, Henry Ford asked why to build car in steel using the non renewable resources for the fuel, when we can do cars entirely with renewable plants (and he proved it, including the rentability). So we have plenty of ways to better manage life on this planet, including possible international taxation to offer a living to those exploiting forest, so as to preserve the maximal pool of genes on the planet. We can do it, so why don't we do it? Probably because we failed to separate the state from private interests and corporatism. Maybe people should vote for political programs *only*, then politicians should be man and woman doing a social service, and would govern following the idea the people voted for, no matter what they have voted themselves. Something like that. But that's for the long run. Today, I don't believe the politics will improve as long as we maintain the criminal prohibition hoax, which makes the whole middle class into hostage of bandits. Good points. There is actually such a movement in the US for voting on issues directly by the public: http://www.ncid.us/ It seems like passage of such an initiative may be the only way to free ourselves from the current system. It seems to be little known today, but in the early Roman republic people voted directly on laws themselves (not just their representatives). Actually, I am not in favor of that (in general). Especially when the media have lost their independence. You can show them a movie or TV show, and makes people voting for any extremities. You want the death penalty? You do a movie on a sordid serial killer. You want do the war against the X, you do the usual propaganda against X, with the usual confusion between - and -. You want Coca Cola illegal, you do ... well, what they did for cannabis. True, but propagandizing a populace is more difficult and expensive than buying a small number of politicians. Moreover, when the people suffer from the laws they vote for, they are more apt to change them. With representative government, leaders never want to admit mistakes and the people continue to suffer under bad laws. Even pools are dangerous and easily manipulable, and such kind of directness can be exploited by those having short term interests. Pools should be illegal some months before election. I think we need to give power to some people for some laps of time. People should vote on ideas, with some spectrum for the ways to implement the idea, but also some rules for avoiding corruption or excess of corruption (as democracies cannot avoid them entirely). Of course here I criticize direct democraties, like they did implement partially in Switzerland. Looking at your link, it is different, but some point there still give me some chilling ... Hmm, I have to look closer, as this is an attempt to counteract directly and practically what exists, but then a mention like Does not modify Congress, the President, or the judicial system looks disturbing. I don't know. Sometimes the medication makes the disease lasting longer ... The type of initiative system that ncid proposes is quite different from existing initiative programs. A whole deliberative process is defined where the law and its effects are evaluated, researched, etc. prior to the vote. There is quite a lot in the details and it is quite interesting. Here is a short video by the author of the law: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bHEkNtPD4M That people can initiate law is nice, though. I would like to initiate the prohibition of prohibition. Oops :) :-) What is freedom of speech without freedom of thought? When we upload ourselves it will be all the more clear that making certain substances illegal is tantamount to making certain computations (thoughts, ways of thinking, and states of consciousness) illegal. Jason Bruno Jason Bruno -Original Message- From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:24 pm Subject: Re: On Global WarmingThe sun is getting a little hotter Coincidentally I came across this wikipage of Freeman Dyson quotes today: - My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
Not assumed to be caused, but known to be caused. The science is clear, it's only that the vast majority of the population is science illiterate to the point that many people with university degrees in economics, engineering etc. don't know much about physics and are susceptible to the same nonsense as most lay persons. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full ABSTRACT Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state. It often is stated that water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere. For example, it has been asserted that ¡°about 98% of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and stratiform clouds with CO2 contributing less than 2%¡± (1). If true, this would imply that changes in atmospheric CO2 are not important influences on the natural greenhouse capacity of Earth, and that the continuing increase in CO2 due to human activity is therefore not relevant to climate change. This misunderstanding is resolved through simple examination of the terrestrial greenhouse. The difference between the nominal global mean surface temperature (TS = 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K) is a common measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS ¨C TE = 33 K). Assuming global energy balance, TE is also the Planck radiation equivalent of the 240 W/m2 of global mean solar radiation absorbed by Earth. The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth. Besides direct solar heating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then absorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both upward and downward directions, further heating the ground and maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere. This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4). These studies established long ago that water vapor and CO2 are indeed the principal terrestrial GHGs. Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one that controls climate change. CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not condense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that respond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precipitating. This identifies water vapor and clouds as the fast feedback processes in the climate system. Radiative forcing experiments assuming doubled CO2 and a 2% increase in solar irradiance (5) show that water vapor provides the strongest climate feedback of any of the atmospheric GHGs, but that it is not the cause (forcing) of global climate change. The response of the climate system to an applied forcing is determined to be the sum of the direct (no-feedback) response to the applied forcing and the induced radiative response that is attributable to the feedback process contributions. The ratio of the total climate response to the no-feedback response is commonly known as the feedback factor, which incorporates all the complexities of the climate system feedback interactions. For the doubled CO2 and the 2% solar irradiance forcings, for which the direct no-feedback responses of the global surface temperature are 1.2¡ã and 1.3¡ãC, respectively, the ~4¡ãC surface warming implies respective feedback factors of 3.3 and 3.0 (5). Because the solar-thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)] is maintained by radiative processes only, and because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, it follows that the global average surface temperature must be determined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of temperature and absorption of radiation. This then is the basic underlying physics that explains the close coupling that exists between TOA radiative fluxes, the greenhouse effect, and the global mean surface temperature. An improved understanding of the relative importance of the
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:43, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: Not assumed to be caused, but known to be caused. Hmm I agree with the spirit of your post. But we never known for sure, it is still a belief even with serious evidences pointing on some truth there. In science we know nothing as such, but some theories are much more plausible than others, and sometimes they might be true too. Bruno The science is clear, it's only that the vast majority of the population is science illiterate to the point that many people with university degrees in economics, engineering etc. don't know much about physics and are susceptible to the same nonsense as most lay persons. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full ABSTRACT Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state. It often is stated that water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere. For example, it has been asserted that ¡ °about 98% of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and stratiform clouds with CO2 contributing less than 2%¡± (1). If true, this would imply that changes in atmospheric CO2 are not important influences on the natural greenhouse capacity of Earth, and that the continuing increase in CO2 due to human activity is therefore not relevant to climate change. This misunderstanding is resolved through simple examination of the terrestrial greenhouse. The difference between the nominal global mean surface temperature (TS = 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K) is a common measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS ¨C TE = 33 K). Assuming global energy balance, TE is also the Planck radiation equivalent of the 240 W/m2 of global mean solar radiation absorbed by Earth. The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth. Besides direct solar heating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then absorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both upward and downward directions, further heating the ground and maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere. This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4). These studies established long ago that water vapor and CO2 are indeed the principal terrestrial GHGs. Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one that controls climate change. CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not condense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that respond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precipitating. This identifies water vapor and clouds as the fast feedback processes in the climate system. Radiative forcing experiments assuming doubled CO2 and a 2% increase in solar irradiance (5) show that water vapor provides the strongest climate feedback of any of the atmospheric GHGs, but that it is not the cause (forcing) of global climate change. The response of the climate system to an applied forcing is determined to be the sum of the direct (no-feedback) response to the applied forcing and the induced radiative response that is attributable to the feedback process contributions. The ratio of the total climate response to the no-feedback response is commonly known as the feedback factor, which incorporates all the complexities of the climate system feedback interactions. For the doubled CO2 and the 2% solar irradiance forcings, for which the direct no-feedback responses of the global surface temperature are 1.2¡ã and 1.3¡ãC, respectively, the ~4¡ãC surface warming implies respective feedback factors of 3.3 and 3.0 (5). Because the solar-thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)] is maintained by radiative processes only, and because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, it
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
It's amazing how much damage the Anthropogenic CO2 can do to the Solar Photosphere. ;-) -Original Message- From: smitra smi...@zonnet.nl To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 10:43 am Subject: Re: On Global WarmingThe sun is getting a little hotter Not assumed to be caused, but known to be caused. The science is clear, t's only that the vast majority of the population is science lliterate to the point that many people with university degrees in conomics, engineering etc. don't know much about physics and are usceptible to the same nonsense as most lay persons. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full ABSTRACT Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single ost important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere. his is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, oes not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current limate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing reenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial reenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature tructure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor nd clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of he greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 nd the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial reenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound arth state. It often is stated that water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas (GHG) n the atmosphere. For example, it has been asserted that ¡°about 98% f the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and stratiform louds with CO2 contributing less than 2%¡± (1). If true, this would mply that changes in atmospheric CO2 are not important influences on he natural greenhouse capacity of Earth, and that the continuing ncrease in CO2 due to human activity is therefore not relevant to limate change. This misunderstanding is resolved through simple xamination of the terrestrial greenhouse. The difference between the nominal global mean surface temperature (TS 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K) is a ommon measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS ¨C TE = 33 ). Assuming global energy balance, TE is also the Planck radiation quivalent of the 240 W/m2 of global mean solar radiation absorbed by arth. The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth. Besides direct solar eating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming rising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then bsorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in oth upward and downward directions, further heating the ground and aintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere. This radiative nteraction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by oseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4). These studies stablished long ago that water vapor and CO2 are indeed the principal errestrial GHGs. Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one hat controls climate change. CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not condense or precipitate from the tmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly ctive components of the climate system that respond rapidly to changes n temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and recipitating. This identifies water vapor and clouds as the fast eedback processes in the climate system. Radiative forcing experiments assuming doubled CO2 and a 2% increase in olar irradiance (5) show that water vapor provides the strongest limate feedback of any of the atmospheric GHGs, but that it is not the ause (forcing) of global climate change. The response of the climate ystem to an applied forcing is determined to be the sum of the direct no-feedback) response to the applied forcing and the induced radiative esponse that is attributable to the feedback process contributions. he ratio of the total climate response to the no-feedback response is ommonly known as the feedback factor, which incorporates all the omplexities of the climate system feedback interactions. For the oubled CO2 and the 2% solar irradiance forcings, for which the direct o-feedback responses of the global surface temperature are 1.2¡ã and .3¡ãC, respectively, the ~4¡ãC surface warming implies respective eedback factors of 3.3 and 3.0 (5). Because the solar-thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the tmosphere (TOA)] is maintained by radiative processes only, and ecause all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, t follows that the global average surface temperature must be etermined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of emperature and absorption of radiation. This then is the basic
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
On 6/15/2013 3:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Coincidentally I came across this wikipage of Freeman Dyson quotes today: * My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. *The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.* It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models. o Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society, in /Edge/ (8 August 2007) http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf He's right that the world is messy. But climate scientists are out measuring everything they can think of. And because things are messier than the models doesn't mean they are exaggerating the effects; they can just as well be underestimating the effects. * * I believe global warming is grossly exaggerated as a problem. *It's a real problem, but it's nothing like as serious as people are led to believe.* The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It distracts people's attention from much more serious problems. o Interview in /Salon/ (29 September 2007) http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/09/29/freeman_dyson/ Since we don't have precise predictions (and such predictions would require predicting what people are going to do) we don't know whether it merely serious or catastrophic. * * All the books that I have seen about the science and the economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. ... Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. o /The New York Review of Books/ (12 June 2008) That's nonsense. Environmentalism is not a religion, it's based on evidence of despoiling large parts of the Eartha and on a scientific understanding of the relation of human well being to that of the environment. It is no more a religion than consumerism - which is the more widely practiced philosophy of life - Who dies with the most toys wins - in the OECD nations and one that is promoted by trillions of dollars in advertising. Brent * What do others think about his comments? Are his critiques valid? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/15/2013 3:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Coincidentally I came across this wikipage of Freeman Dyson quotes today: - My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. *The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.* It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models. - Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society, in *Edge* (8 August 2007)http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf He's right that the world is messy. But climate scientists are out measuring everything they can think of. He makes the point that climat scientists are missing or ignoring important aspects of biology and topsoil, among other things. From the article: I will discuss the global warming problem in detail because it is interesting, even though its importance is exaggerated. One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas. To understand the movement of carbon through the atmosphere and biosphere, we need to measure a lot of numbers. I do not want to confuse you with a lot of numbers, so I will ask you to remember just one number. The number that I ask you to remember is one hundredth of an inch per year. Now I will explain what this number means. Consider the half of the land area of the earth that is not desert or ice-cap or city or road or parking-lot. This is the half of the land that is covered with soil and supports vegetation of one kind or another. Every year, it absorbs and converts into biomass a certain fraction of the carbon dioxide that we emit into the atmosphere. Biomass means living creatures, plants and microbes and animals, and the organic materials that are left behind when the creatures die and decay. We don’t know how big a fraction of our emissions is absorbed by the land, since we have not measured the increase or decrease of the biomass. The number that I ask you to remember is the increase in thickness, averaged over one half of the land area of the planet, of the biomass that would result if all the carbon that we are emitting by burning fossil fuels were absorbed. The average increase in thickness is one hundredth of an inch per year. The point of this calculation is the very favorable rate of exchange between carbon in the atmosphere and carbon in the soil. To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good topsoil contains about ten percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a hundredth of an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch of topsoil. Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. If we plant crops without plowing the soil, more of the biomass goes into roots which stay in the soil, and less returns to the atmosphere. If we use genetic engineering to put more biomass into roots, we can probably achieve much more rapid growth of topsoil. I conclude from this calculation that the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology. No computer model of atmosphere and ocean can hope to predict the way we shall manage our land. Here is another heretical thought. Instead of calculating world-wide averages of biomass growth, we may prefer to look at the problem locally. Consider a possible future, with China continuing to develop an industrial economy based largely on the burning of coal, and the United States deciding to absorb the resulting carbon dioxide by increasing the biomass in our topsoil. The quantity of biomass that can be accumulated in living plants and trees is limited, but there is no limit to the quantity that can be stored in topsoil. To grow topsoil on a massive scale may or may not be practical, depending on the economics of
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
On 6/15/2013 5:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote: The point of this calculation is the very favorable rate of exchange between carbon in the atmosphere and carbon in the soil. To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good topsoil contains about ten percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a hundredth of an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch of topsoil. Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. I find this dubious. Sure the natural biomass/CO2 cycle is huge and so a 1% shift could cancel fossil fuel burning; the problem is that the shift has been going the other way (decreasing the land area used to accumulate biomass, also in Schlesinger 1977) and changing that will require drastic world-wide measures - which deniers like Dyson are going to delay indefinitely by providing excuses as to why no action is necessary. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 08:44:12PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 6/15/2013 5:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote: The point of this calculation is the very favorable rate of exchange between carbon in the atmosphere and carbon in the soil. To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good topsoil contains about ten percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a hundredth of an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch of topsoil. Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. I find this dubious. Sure the natural biomass/CO2 cycle is huge and so a 1% shift could cancel fossil fuel burning; the problem is that the shift has been going the other way (decreasing the land area used to accumulate biomass, also in Schlesinger 1977) and changing that will require drastic world-wide measures - which deniers like Dyson are going to delay indefinitely by providing excuses as to why no action is necessary. I'm not sure that is what Dyson is doing though. If anything, I would say he is asking for more research into biospheric effects on global warming. This is rather different from your average climate change denier who would prefer that such research was not done at all. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
On 6/15/2013 10:16 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 08:44:12PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 6/15/2013 5:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote: The point of this calculation is the very favorable rate of exchange between carbon in the atmosphere and carbon in the soil. To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good topsoil contains about ten percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a hundredth of an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch of topsoil. Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. I find this dubious. Sure the natural biomass/CO2 cycle is huge and so a 1% shift could cancel fossil fuel burning; the problem is that the shift has been going the other way (decreasing the land area used to accumulate biomass, also in Schlesinger 1977) and changing that will require drastic world-wide measures - which deniers like Dyson are going to delay indefinitely by providing excuses as to why no action is necessary. I'm not sure that is what Dyson is doing though. If anything, I would say he is asking for more research into biospheric effects on global warming. This is rather different from your average climate change denier who would prefer that such research was not done at all. But he's not motivating research by saying global warming is not a big problem and there are more important things to worry about. And I see not support for his claim that no-till farming will cause biomass to grow at least as fast as necessary. It's certainly not in Schlesinger's paper which is discussing the increase in CO2 due to the loss of world wide biomass. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
