74
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 10:01 pm
Okie and Ican- Read the following with regard to water vapor vs. Co2. I am sure that Paradox cannot rebut it.
*************************************************************
The central point is that the major absorbing gas in the atmosphere is water, not CO2, and although CO2 is the only other significant atmospheric absorbing gas, it is still only a minor contributor because of its relatively low concentration. The radiative absorption “cross sections” for water and CO2 are so similar that their relative influence depends primarily on their relative concentrations. Indeed, although water actually absorbs more strongly, for many engineering calculations the concentrations of the two gases are added, and the mixture is treated as a single gas.

In the atmosphere, the molar concentration of CO2 is in the range of 350"400 ppm. Water, on the other hand, has a very large variation but, using the “60/60” (60% relative humidity [RH] at 60 °F) value as an average, then from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers standard psychrometric chart, the weight ratio of water to (dry) air is ~0.0065, or roughly 10,500 ppm. Compared with CO2, this puts water, on average, at 25"30 times the (molar) concentration of the CO2, but it can range from a 1:1 ratio to >100:1.

Even closer focus on water is given by solution of the Schuster"Schwarzschild equation applied to the U.S. Standard Atmosphere profiles for the variation of temperature, pressure, and air density with elevation (8). The results show that the average absorption coefficient obtained for the atmosphere closely corresponds to that for the 5.6"7.6-µm water radiation band, when water is in the concentration range 60"80% RH"on target for atmospheric conditions. The absorption coefficient is 1"2 orders of magnitude higher than the coefficient values for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm. This would seem to eliminate CO2 and thus provide closure to that argument.

This overall position can be summarized by saying that water accounts, on average, for >95% of the radiative absorption. And, because of the variation in the absorption due to water variation, anything future increases in CO2 might do, water will already have done. The common objection to this argument is that the wide fluctuations in water concentration make an averaging (for some reason) impermissible. Yet such averaging is applied without objection to global temperatures, when the actual temperature variation across the Earth from poles to equator is roughly "100 to +100 °F, and a change on the average of ±1 °F is considered major and significant. If this averaging procedure can be applied to the atmospheric temperature, it can be applied to the atmospheric water content; and if it is denied for water, it must, likewise, be denied for temperature"in that case we don’t have an identified problem!

****************************************************************

1. Water Vapor- the major absorbing gas, Co2--much more minor

2. Water 25-30 times the malor concentratio of C02

3. Absorbent Coefficent is 1-2 bands higher than the coefficent bands for Co2 values at a concentration of 440 ppm.

4. Water accounts for 95% of the radiative absorbence--on average.

5, To the rejoinder that the wide fluctuations in water concentrations make an average impermissible, it is clear that IF AVERAGES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, AVERAGES FOR RADIATIVE ABSORBENCE CAN ALSO BE OBTAINED.

( As the article notes, the CO2 crowd NEEDS average global temperature measurements)
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 10:17 pm
To all who contribute to this thread--

All of this posting will be irrelevant after the Climate conference is over. This conference will be held in December 2009 in Copenhagen. Anyone, even the esteemed president of the United States who presses for ruinous economic constraints which will cause a loss of Millions of Jobs, should be ignored WHEN China and India refuse to go along with the proposals to "reduce" the "alleged" global warming because they are developing countries.

Signals have already been sent by China and India that they will not co-operate unless a huge subsidy is given to them.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 10:27 pm
@genoves,
genoves wrote:

Debra L A W . . . you could not have had such a job while flatulating all over these threads so often . . . you should be known as Debra L O S E R!


How to ID Possum Poop

Possum responded to my 9th post of the week. Possum, however, has posted 129 times this week. Just one of his mephitic posts contains more words than all my posts combined. Possum posts far more often than I do, but probably not as much as Foxfyre (although they could be the same person). Possum cannot possibly have a job because he spends entirely too much time crapping huge putrid mountains of excrement all over these threads all day long. Possum should be careful about who he calls a "loser" based on posting history.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:14 pm
I could buy and sell you, Debra L A W, but I don't think I could get a good price for a piece of flotsam like you.

I make more money in a month than you make in a year. My last trip to Europe in April garnered me enough money to live for the next two years.

Mephitic--My that's a big word..But you see, I know what it means and, as usual, you cannot possibly know how I smell. But, I do know how YOUR posts smell--therefore I suggest you take a strong carminitive.
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:16 pm
I am sure that Foxfyre is getting a big laugh out of Debra L A W's suggestion that she and I are the same poster. Even for Debra L A W, that is a stretch!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 07:19 am
@okie,
Hmmm... Central England you say?

Central England is about the size of Mississipi okie. Trying to extrapolate an area of the globe that small to the entire globe is rather disingenuous don't you think?

Based on Hadcrut3 numbers the globe is .07C higher than it was last year.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

According to GISS the globe is .12C higher.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Of course comparing one year to the next is meaningless in calculating long term trends. Comparing one year to the next in less than .03% of the globe and pretending it can be extrapolated to show anything beyond that area is stupid.
Debra Law
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 05:51 pm
@genoves,
POSSUM wrote:
My last trip to Europe in April garnered me enough money to live for the next two years.


Were you fired from your teaching job in the ghetto because of your racism? or was it pedophilia? I don't recall. Please tell us again why you lost your teaching job.

The 7 Most Ingenious (And Insane) Smuggling Techniques

Quote:
When you combine contraband, poverty, desperation and lots of spare time, you get the bizarre world of the smuggler.

Source: CRACKED.com

Is this how you make your money, Possum? If so, how many condoms filled with dope do you have to swallow to make enough money to live for two years?

Was your trip to Europe a stop-over to Thailand? Are you a tour guide? If so, perhaps you shouldn't be spending all of your time online.

High-tech work led to alleged pedophile’s arrest

Quote:
BANGKOK, Thailand - With the help of a computer program, German police digitally unscrambled the swirls that obscured the face of a man depicted having sex with boys in Vietnam and Cambodia.

With the reach of the Internet, an unprecedented worldwide appeal by Interpol brought hundreds of responses via e-mail to the French-based police agency.

And with the aid of traced cell phone calls, Thai police tracked the suspect to a house well off the usual tourist trail, in northeastern Thailand.


You spend a lot of time on the internet, Possum. According to your own definition, that makes you a LOSER. Thus, I will place you on ignore. Have a nice day satiating your voracious posting appetite and generally making an ass of yourself.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 01:51 pm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
274
Atmospheric scientist Bruce Schwoegler, former U.S. Navy meteorologist and Boston broadcast meteorologist, rejected man-made climate fears. "It is my contention that too many variables cloud the global warming broth that has boiled over. A rational approach and lower setting on the hot stove political and media agenda is in order," Schwoegler wrote to EPW on May 29, 2007. Schwoegler, who was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Outstanding Broadcast Meteorologist service award, is also an investigator with an international team studying environmental impacts of a Caribbean volcano. "Yes, significant global warming is a concern, and there is a likely relationship between human induced impacts and climate change. But has anyone truly ascertained the scope, depth and outcome in our planetary system which is rife with natural checks and balances? Quantifying them and resultant interactions remains mostly a game of my theory versus yours," he explained. "Urbanization's heat islands, volcanic activity, solar fluctuations, historical climate cycles, oceanic and green canopy carbon budgets and the magnitude of artificial irrigation are but a few of the more blatant examples of puzzle pieces not yet in place. Even proliferating aircraft contrails and changes in measuring techniques and sites must be considered. All comprise a cloudy soup that should be set to low as I am not yet prepared to eat," he concluded.

Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 02:00 pm
@ican711nm,
This one seems to be in my little camp, Ican. He is saying he doesn't know for sure, but that there is too little evidence and too much that we don't know for us to be ready to make far reaching national or international policy based on what we do know.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 09:46 pm
@parados,
As I said, Central England climate records are more interesting than other small areas because the records go back a longer time into history than we have for most anywhere else. That you don't find it interesting, I don't particularly care. I am not making any grand conclusions from Central England, but I like to monitor the records, I think they are meaningful. I can't help it if you don't.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 10:38 pm
@okie,
I only can underline what you said, okie: those Central England data are really most interesting for the history, in general as well as of the weather in particular, of anyone interested in such such. In Central England and perhaps even in surrounding counties.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:52 am
@okie,
Quote:
I am not making any grand conclusions from Central England,
And yet you posted it on a thread entitled "Global Warming."

Quote:
I think they are meaningful
In the exact same paragraph where you said you don't make any conclusions.

Based on where you posted it and your current remarks okie, trying to claim you aren't making conclusions seems a little disingenuous on your part. But that seems to be the MO of you and ican and Foxfyre. You make statements that are intended to make an argument then deny you were trying to say anything at all.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:56 am
On the lighter side, considering the belief of those who think we can roll back our dependence on fossil fuels within the next decade or so, I saw an old Flintstones episode last night and observed their foot powered automobile and noted its energy efficiency. It occurred to me that if our esteemed leaders continue us down the path to the improbable and manage to put the cost of private transportation out of reach for many, we might all have to start driving these:

http://www.boston.com/cars/newsandreviews/overdrive/Little-Tikes-Cozy-Coupe.jpg

According to Boston.com, it was America's best selling vehicle in the past year. (Credit to MM who posted the link on one of the economics threads.)

http://www.boston.com/cars/newsandreviews/overdrive/2009/06/little_tikes_cozy_coupe_is_ame.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed5



0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:27 pm
And from the international front and tag it in the 'tip of the iceberg' category:

Quote:
Levy on international air travel could fund climate change fight
John Vidal
environment editor guardian.co.uk
Sunday 7 June 2009

Britain and other rich countries will be asked to accept a compulsory levy on international flight tickets and shipping fuel to raise billions of dollars to help the world's poorest countries adapt to combat climate change.

The suggestions come at the start of the second week in the latest round of UN climate talks in Bonn, where 192 countries are starting to negotiate a global agreement to limit and then reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The issue of funding for adaptation is critical to success but the hardest to agree.

The aviation levy, which is expected to increase the price of long-haul fares by less than 1%, would raise $10bn (£6.25bn) a year, it is said.

It has been proposed by the world's 50 least developed countries. It could be matched by a compulsory surcharge on all international shipping fuel, said Connie Hedegaard, the Danish environment and energy minister who will host the final UN climate summit in December.

"People are beginning to understand that innovative ideas could generate a lot of money. The Danish shipping industry, which is one of the world's largest, has said a that truly global system would work well. Denmark would endorse it," said Hedegaard.

In Bonn last week, a separate Mexican proposal to raise billions of dollars was gaining ground. The idea, known as the "green fund" plan, would oblige all countries to pay amounts according to a formula reflecting the size of their economy, their greenhouse gas emissions and the country's population. That could ensure that rich countries, which have the longest history of using of fossil fuels, pay the most to the fund.

Recently, the proposal won praise from 17 major-economy countries meeting in Paris as a possible mechanism to help finance a UN pact. The US special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, called it "highly constructive".

The Bonn meeting is the first climate meeting at which countries are discussing texts. These cover greenhouse gas reduction and financing developing countries' efforts to combat climate change.

Analysts said last night that the talks were most likely to stall over money. Developing countries, backed by the UN, argue that they will need hundreds of billions of dollars a year to adapt themselves to climate-related disasters, loss of crops and water supplies, which they are already experiencing as temperatures around the world rise. Yet so far, as a Guardian investigation revealed back in February, rich countries have pledged only a few billion dollars and have provided only a few hundred million.

"Developing countries will no longer let themselves be sidelined. In the past, they have been brought on board [climate negotiations] by promises of financial support. But all they got was the creation of a couple of funds that stayed empty. Developing countries will not settle for more 'placebo funds'," said Benito Müller, director of Oxford University's institute for energy studies.

Saleemul Huq, of the International Institute for Environment and Development, said that until rich countries made serious pledges, the rest of the negotiations would suffer because it would be impossible to agree actions without knowing how they would be funded.

Last week, a US negotiator, Jonathan Pershing, said that the US had budgeted $400m to help poor countries adapt to climate change as an interim measure. But that amount was dismissed as inadequate by Bernarditas Muller of the Philippines, who is the co-ordinator of the G77 and China group of countries.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/07/international-flight-levy-un-climate-change
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:38 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

Analysts said last night that the talks were most likely to stall over money. Developing countries, backed by the UN, argue that they will need hundreds of billions of dollars a year to adapt themselves to climate-related disasters, loss of crops and water supplies, which they are already experiencing as temperatures around the world rise. Yet so far, as a Guardian investigation revealed back in February, rich countries have pledged only a few billion dollars and have provided only a few hundred million.

"Developing countries will no longer let themselves be sidelined. In the past, they have been brought on board [climate negotiations] by promises of financial support. But all they got was the creation of a couple of funds that stayed empty. Developing countries will not settle for more 'placebo funds'," said Benito Müller, director of Oxford University's institute for energy studies.

Saleemul Huq, of the International Institute for Environment and Development, said that until rich countries made serious pledges, the rest of the negotiations would suffer because it would be impossible to agree actions without knowing how they would be funded.

Last week, a US negotiator, Jonathan Pershing, said that the US had budgeted $400m to help poor countries adapt to climate change as an interim measure. But that amount was dismissed as inadequate by Bernarditas Muller of the Philippines, who is the co-ordinator of the G77 and China group of countries.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/07/international-flight-levy-un-climate-change.

*****************************************************************

Exactly-- This is what I have predicting for months based on my reading.

Anyone who is familiar with the MASSIVE FAILURE of the Kyoto Protocol could have foreseen this.

To persuade the countries of the world, especially the developing countries ,to sign on to a very very expensive shutting down of fuel sources based on a very questionable view of what MAY happen ninety years from now to the world climate, is an endeavor which is doomed from the start.

When the global recession is thrown into the mix and millions more will be put out of work, the process becomes truly laughable.

Even an old loyal Democrat from Michigan--representative Dingell, who, one would assume, would be highly loyal to Obuma, said--(cap and trade) would be very very expensive.
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:42 pm
Scientists say Kyoto protocol is 'outdated failure'

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
The international effort to curb man-made emissions of greenhouse gases " as enshrined in the Kyoto protocol " is a miserable failure that needs to be swept away and replaced, according to a new report.


Climate policy after 2012, when the Kyoto agreement comes to an end, will disintegrate unless the principles behind the present treaty are overhauled and a new approach is taken, says the study, published in the journal Nature.

"The Kyoto protocol... as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, has failed," it says. "It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth."

Gwyn Prins, of the London School of Economics, and Steve Rayner, of Oxford University, criticise Kyoto for being the wrong tool for controlling emissions.

Too often, they say, its failure is blamed on the US and Australia for not signing up to it. They argue that the protocol was misconceived from the start because it was based on previous international treaties to protect the ozone layer, to stop acid rain and to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

"This borrowing simply failed to accommodate the complexity of the climate-change issue," they say. "Kyoto has failed... also because it has stifled discussion of alternative policy approaches."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:44 pm
@genoves,
genoves wrote:


Even an old loyal Democrat from Michigan--representative Dingell, who, one would assume, would be highly loyal to Obuma, said--(cap and trade) would be very very expensive.

Eventually, even some liberals face up to reality. As Romney liked to say in the debates, "facts are stubborn things."
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:48 pm
@Debra Law,
If you put me on ignore, Debra L A W, you will miss the pleasure of reading how I take your spurious legal ideas apart. It is too bad you will miss the instruction.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:50 pm
To all who contribute to this thread--

All of this posting will be irrelevant after the Climate conference is over. This conference will be held in December 2009 in Copenhagen. Anyone, even the esteemed president of the United States who presses for ruinous economic constraints which will cause a loss of Millions of Jobs, should be ignored WHEN China and India refuse to go along with the proposals to "reduce" the "alleged" global warming because they are developing countries.

Signals have already been sent by China and India that they will not co-operate unless a huge subsidy is given to them.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:52 pm
Okie- Ignore Cicerone Imposter. Tell him to fu.k off. He is trying to intimidate you because he cannot rebut your ideas. Like some of the rest of the left wingers on these threads, he is a true Chimpanzee, huddling up in a group, refusing to listen to anyone else and obsessed with grooming each other and gossiping about the vicious conservatives.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/20/2025 at 03:18:02