Global Warming---clean thread

[disciple]

I think it is more of a (false) religion than a joke. It isn't very funny, anyway.

[RetroTechGuy]

I think it is more of a (false) religion than a joke. It isn't very funny, anyway.

It really isn't about saving lives, it's actually about control of the energy people use -- or collecting fees for the same. Recall the recent scheme for selling carbon indulgences...

If they could license and restrict the use of air, they would (can't pay?, then die!).

[Flash]

The temperature in Phoenix this time of year does indeed cool down at night, usually into the comfort range by morning. However, around the middle of next month the relative humidity will increase, from roughly zero to perhaps 20 or 30 percent, and while the daytime high might be a few degrees cooler than it is now, the nighttime low will be, like, 90. What other explanation can there be for the fact that the air stays hotter all night, than that water vapor "traps" heat (in the same way that CO2 does)? Obviously neither one retains heat perfectly. The heat leaks away into space more or less quickly, depending on how much CO2 or H2O there is in the atmosphere. There's a lot less CO2 in the air right now than there will be water vapor in a month, so the heat "trapped" by CO2 leaks away into space more quickly than heat that is "trapped" by water vapor, which explains why the air remains so hot at night during our rainy season.

Just for the sake of argument, let's go back to a time two hundred years ago when there was much less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now. Nobody was around who could measure the temperature at sunrise two hundred years ago, but I'll bet it was a few degrees cooler then than it is now. That's what's behind the notion of global warming; not that the air retains all its heat, that's ridiculous, but that it retains more heat than it would without the extra CO2. Perhaps this results in only a small increase in temperature, but small changes can have large consequences. Some plants and animals are quite sensitive to small differences in conditions. For example consider the tree line. Trees which otherwise cover a mountain don't grow at all above the tree line. I don't know why, but my point is that the conditions just above the tree line can only be slightly different from those just below the tree line. You'd think that a few brave and intrepid trees would grow above the tree line, but none do at all.

[Bruce B]

The temperature in Phoenix this time of year does indeed cool down at night, usually into the comfort range by morning.

Yeah, sure. I was there about this time of year and it was hot, I mean real hot at 3:00AM.

I don't know how you guys even live there and I'm a desert rat also.

~

[Flash]

You must have been here in July, or maybe the rainy season arrived early that year.

Before practical air conditioning saved the day sometime in the late '50s, people who could afford it used to spend the months of July and August in San Diego or Flagstaff or anywhere but Phoenix. But most of the denizens of Phoenix had to tough out the heat because they couldn't afford to go somewhere else.

Now, of course, anyone who's tough enough to stand the heat for as long as it take to get from her house to her Escalade or her Escalade to her office can live here. Covered parking is always a find, but for some reason there is not yet a mass movement to cover every parking lot in the valley with solar cells.

[aarf]

if it is wet the earth would also be holding water and thus would also hold more heat than parch dry soil. so more heat needs to dissapated in the wet nights. guessing.

[disciple]

the conditions just above the tree line can only be slightly different from those just below the tree line.

I think you'll find that there are conditions that are very different just above the treeline , precisely because there are no trees above the treeline.
If there were already trees there (maybe they colonised it when the climate was milder at some stage in the past), then they would stay there. But if you chopped them all down, they wouldn't grow back.[/i]

[Flash]

Then how did the trees colonize the mountain all the way up to the tree line? The tree line seems to have something to do with altitude. Every mountain that's high enough has a tree line, as far as I know. Surely no one planted the trees all over the mountains and just quit when they got to an arbitrary altitude (2700 meters in the case of Kilimanjaro.)

[disciple]

Yeah, you're right, the tree line has plenty to do with altitude, although of course it is not just altitude. The tree line might be higher up in a sheltered valley than on an exposed ridge, or on the sunny side of the mountain than on the shady side, or on one side of a mountain range than another.

Then how did the trees colonize the mountain all the way up to the tree line?

Good point. So if point A is just below the treeline, now that the trees are there the conditions are quite different from point B just above the treeline, but the condition at point A before the trees colonised it would have been almost the same as at point B. Why do the trees advance little by little past point A, but never get to point B?

The tree line, like many other natural lines (lake boundaries, for example), appears well-defined from a distance, but upon sufficiently close inspection, it is a gradual transition in most places. Trees grow shorter towards the inhospitable climate until they simply stop growing.

Maybe we should think of a treeline as an asymptote.

I do think my example of chopping down the trees and them not growing back if other conditions have worsened is correct . If other conditions have remained the same, we would expect the trees to grow back to the old treeline eventually.

[Flash]

I agree, if conditions have worsened, the trees wouldn't grow back to the same point.

Even though the treeline is more gradual than it appears from a distance, I think my original point, that small differences can have big consequences, is still correct. The difference in conditions between the altitude where trees no longer grow at all, and the altitude where they begin to grow stunted, must be pretty small for the treeline to appear to be so abrupt from a distance.

Getting back to the subject of global warming, it seems quite possible to me that small differences in average temperature could have what appear to us puny self-absorbed humans to be large consequences. With the exception of water, the zone of life, at least of life as we know it on Earth, is pretty narrow no matter which dimension you choose to measure it in. For instance, nothing grows outside the temperature range from frozen to boiling water. Within that temperature range, a small change can make all the difference between life or not life for many species, and not just the ones we humans find yummy.

[RetroTechGuy]

The temperature in Phoenix this time of year does indeed cool down at night, usually into the comfort range by morning. However, around the middle of next month the relative humidity will increase, from roughly zero to perhaps 20 or 30 percent, and while the daytime high might be a few degrees cooler than it is now, the nighttime low will be, like, 90. What other explanation can there be for the fact that the air stays hotter all night, than that water vapor "traps" heat (in the same way that CO2 does)? Obviously neither one retains heat perfectly. The heat leaks away into space more or less quickly, depending on how much CO2 or H2O there is in the atmosphere. There's a lot less CO2 in the air right now than there will be water vapor in a month, so the heat "trapped" by CO2 leaks away into space more quickly than heat that is "trapped" by water vapor, which explains why the air remains so hot at night during our rainy season.

Water vapor is a very strong "greenhouse gas", but unless it drives that energy into some dense matter (water, soil), it too will be lost.

There's always a lot less CO2 than there is water vapor. You have to get unbelievably dry to reverse that position.

Just for the sake of argument, let's go back to a time two hundred years ago when there was much less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now.

Not really (much less CO2).

We should also note that we were in the Little Ice Age 200 years ago.

The LIA ended approximately 1850, which I presume is why global warmists always show their graphs starting there...

But back to CO2, it is such a strong absorber that it reached "saturation" at quite low levels (really low).

Dr. Richard Lindzen calculated "How cold would we get under CO2-less sky?"

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/179_col.pdf

Note that the first 19 ppm CO2 gives us 3.53 C increase. Increasing from 19 ppm to 300 ppm, gives us another 1.23 C.

I have actually confirmed these calculations using MODTRAN. Very close to the MODTRAN (radiative transfer model).

Nobody was around who could measure the temperature at sunrise two hundred years ago, but I'll bet it was a few degrees cooler then than it is now.

Once again, we were in the Little Ice Age. The Maunder Minimum was the approximate center of the LIA (we had low solar activity, and no sun spots for a time).

For the last 100 years the solar activity has been more active than the previous 1,000, and based on various proxy (e.g. Be10) 10,000-15,000 years.

Judith Lean estimated the solar flux over the last 400 years (we have a sunspot record over that period).

http://web.archive.org/web/200807032114 ... diance.gif

Note how the solar activity has increased over the last 100 years.

And we have estimates of possible temperature increases resulting from CO2:

http://web.archive.org/web/200808170908 ... use-X2.png

http://web.archive.org/web/200808170909 ... use-X4.png

Note that these are all smaller than what alarmists and the IPCC predict (I regularly hear alarmists prediction 7 to 10 C rise).

That's what's behind the notion of global warming; not that the air retains all its heat, that's ridiculous, but that it retains more heat than it would without the extra CO2.

But if the Earth retains that heat, then it must show up somewhere other than air temperatures. It apparently isn't going into the ocean.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/t ... -the-deep/

Those who continue to support the warming position are now forced to claim that the thermally active region of the ocean is much, much deeper.

If that is true, then the claim of impending doom is false, as this much deeper ocean buys us considerable time.

The goal of "global warming" is to create a crusade, and stampede the population to give power to uninformed government officials, and to line the pockets of those who profit from such government controls.

[RetroTechGuy]

Getting back to the subject of global warming, it seems quite possible to me that small differences in average temperature could have what appear to us puny self-absorbed humans to be large consequences. With the exception of water, the zone of life, at least of life as we know it on Earth, is pretty narrow no matter which dimension you choose to measure it in. For instance, nothing grows outside the temperature range from frozen to boiling water. Within that temperature range, a small change can make all the difference between life or not life for many species, and not just the ones we humans find yummy.

Let's do a gedanken experiment. Suppose every single thing that you believe is true.

How would you fix it? Turn off gas heat to those in the northern climes?

Turn off electricity to those in the hot southern climes? (should we note that more people die of heat, than cold)

Would you make your grandmother ride a bicycle to town to get groceries?

Ban trucking (and thus groceries)?

If you believe the alarmists, we must take severe and drastic action.

In doing so, how much of the world's population are you willing to sacrifice? If you aren't willing to sacrifice a large number of people, how would you solve this?

[linuxbear]

What other explanation can there be for the fact that the air stays hotter all night.

This not a yea or nay response to the topic, but rather another response to the question. Las Vegas is a concrete and asphalt jungle. This tends to create a bit of a micro-climate within the Vegas metro area. In the summer, when the heat builds up during the day, there is less tendency for all of these man made buildings and streets to cool because the nights are warmer in the summer. That same summer heat fluctuation in the desert tends to be much less because the natural environment in the high desert cools faster. My car is parked outside in the shade and when I get inside the vehicle's outdoor thermometer reports ambient temperature very accurately. When I am on the highway during the hotter times of the day, the difference between street temperature and ambient temperature can be as much as 10% higher.

[disciple]

If you really believe the alarmist's predictions then it is already too late and we should be devoting resources to adapting for climate change, not wasting our time trying to prevent or minimise it.

[Flash]

How can we adapt to something when we don't have any idea what it will be until it's on us? That's a pretty good reason in my book to try to keep it from happening. Better the devil we've known for thousands of years.

An asteroid the size of a city block smashing into Earth might turn out to be a good thing in the long run, but does anyone think our present society could adapt to its consequences and continue to function pretty much as it does now in the short run?

[jpeps]

If you believe the alarmists, we must take severe and drastic action.

The statement suggests any action would be incorrect by the way it's phrased.

In doing so, how much of the world's population are you willing to sacrifice? If you aren't willing to sacrifice a large number of people, how would you solve this?

Again, the question assumes that any action would be dangerous.

[disciple]

An asteroid the size of a city block smashing into Earth might turn out to be a good thing in the long run, but does anyone think our present society could adapt to its consequences and continue to function pretty much as it does now in the short run?

But "global warming" wouldn't happen instantaneously. No one's suggesting that next week the sea level will rise 2m and half the forests will turn into desert. They're suggesting those changes will occur over the course of decades, which is plenty of time for example for people to evacuate places as they become inhospitable.

[jpeps]

They're suggesting those changes will occur over the course of decades, which is plenty of time for example for people to evacuate places as they become inhospitable.

If we're talking about all the coastal cities, I would hope that options for not having to relocate everyone are examined as well.

Thanks to public education and demand, we've already seen many significant actions in the direction of environmental awareness. Other than a corporate lobbyist, what sane person would vote for more pollution in the air, water, and food, or wanton destruction of natural resources for short-term corporate profits (most of which are tax-free and never make it back to the general population)?

About 5 years ago I bought a Prius, which gets 46 miles per gallon. Although it initially cost a little more, I now pay about $23 to fill it up. My girlfriend pays over $50 to fill up her car, with the price of gas now over $4.25. I don't see that I made such a huge sacrifice. There are many reasons, such as lobbyists from the oil/gas industry, that have blocked more efficient engines from being available inexpensively on the market.

BTW/ "environmental awareness" doesn't include hype such as scams to make money off the "green" movement.

[RetroTechGuy]

If you believe the alarmists, we must take severe and drastic action.

The statement suggests any action would be incorrect by the way it's phrased.

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out what the alarmists say.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campai ... nd-energy/

But a brighter future is possible. Over the next three years, Greenpeace will:

1. Join local communities to shut down dangerous, dirty coal plants all across the United States.

2. Advocate for strong laws to curb global warming and put America on a path to clean energy.

3. Expose climate deniers, like the Koch Brothers, and hold them publicly accountable for providing millions of dollars to lobby against climate and clean energy policies.

4. Kick-start an Energy Revolution by advocating for clean-energy solutions like solar and wind power.

We can analyze these in detail, but #1 will shut down coal plants, and therefore reduce available electricity in the US by 50%. China by a much greater amount.

And unless they have changed their position, they also oppose nuclear.

A 50% reduction of electricity will drive up costs greatly, and price many people out of the market. So people in both warm and cold regions may die, for lack of power.

We don't know if they'll push to eliminate auto fuel, which could shut down trucking.

In doing so, how much of the world's population are you willing to sacrifice? If you aren't willing to sacrifice a large number of people, how would you solve this?

Again, the question assumes that any action would be dangerous.

I'm pointing out what the alarmists suggest.

We can have a discussion of how you would solve the "problem".

We will compare your solutions to what these people claim must happen, as a "feasibility check".

[jpeps]

If you believe the alarmists, we must take severe and drastic action.

The statement suggests any action would be incorrect by the way it's phrased.

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out what the alarmists say.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campai ... nd-energy/

But a brighter future is possible. Over the next three years, Greenpeace will:

My point is that there is no need to equate taking action with being an alarmist. The agenda of "Greenpeace" is questionable.

We live in a time of exponential change and potential catastrophe..thanks largely to unbridled financial incentive.