0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The blue line is the energy we would get without an atmosphere, yellow line is what we get with it. Look at the combined efforts of carbon dioxide and water vapor: it keeps us cool!!I think it will be difficult to get a more quantifiable result as this, unless somebody puts some money into some real research.
But the carbon dioxide is also absorbing at around 2 and between 4 and 5 um which is leading to some infra red from the sun being cut short, i.e. cooling.
About MeTom Nelson I have a Masters of Science degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering.
But you demonstrated again that you did not answer the question that was posted: "Look at the graphs! What is coming from the sun on earth compared to measured above earth's atmosphere from the sun is about 30% less. Unless you have other figures? If you look at the graphs, principally the gasses that cause this effect are ozone, oxygen,water and carbondixide.If this is not cooling, then what is? Please do explain this to me?"
So are we all agreed now that the ozone, oxygen, water vapor and carbon dioxide have a combined effect so that approximately 30% less heat from the sun hits the earth? (I am trying to avoid the word "cooling" now, otherwise I get into trouble)
Since this is a science website I presume that you have evidence for that. Perhaps you might care to open another thread to discuss it.
Bored,The CO2 bandwagon has been getting noticeably lighter in recent years. One reason for this is the simple hysteria just LOOKS suspicious. ONLY 50 DAYS LEFT TO SAVE THE PLANET! I believe something like that was actually said by the highest official in one of the most advanced nations on earth just recently.
Ben - I don't care WHAT it referred to. The fact this offical actually said that is prima facia evidence of hysteria.Maybe you don't get it. Statements like this and others like it create a social climate of suspicion. JUSTIFIED suspicion in my opinion. If Gore shows me a forelorn Polar Bear on melting ice berg, while at the same time I have reports "there are a hell of a lot more Polar Bears", I take notice.
Warm is good for several reasons. First, it provides more arrible land.
Warm is good, cold is bad, that simple is it?Ok. Why is warm good?
BoredYour last post suggests you are drunker then ME! I am about out of beer, and will leave the stage.....
No second chances you fraudulent piece of iceberg flotsom.
Madi,Get yourself a wetsuit and start bringing those distraught Polar Bears to safety. What you fail to realize is not all of us are Chumps. Lie to me about Polar Bear Populations, or past climate change, and you are history.No second chances you fraudulent piece of iceberg flotsom.
BoredI found my Roma Era warming studies. It took a couple of hours. The following link shows a number of proxy studies, with summaries. http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropenorth.phpThe following link is from that summary and shows the Roman Era 6C warmer. I am skeptical about that particular number.... http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N40/C2.php"Linderholm and Gunnarson (2005) utilized the well replicated period of 1632 BC to AD 2000 of the Jämtland multi-millennial tree-ring width chronology derived from living and subfossil Scots pines sampled close to the present tree-line in the central Scandinavian Mountains as a proxy for summer temperatures. Several periods of anomalously warm and cold summers were noted throughout this record: (1) 550 to 450 BC (Roman Warm Period), when summer temperatures were the warmest of the entire record, exceeding the 1961-1990 mean by more than 6°C, (2) AD 300 to 400 (Dark Ages Cold Period), which was "the longest period of consecutive cold summers," averaging 1.5°C less than the 1961-1990 mean, (3) AD 900 to 1000, a warm era corresponding to the Medieval Warm Period, and (4) AD 1550 to 1900, a cold period known as the Little Ice Age."PS: This is a nice link to long scale co2/Temp tracking: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
In view of these several research findings, it should be obvious that the Roman Warm Period was a very real feature of northern European climatic history, and that it likely was even warmer than the Current Warm Period has been to date. Furthermore, since all of that prior warmth occurred at times when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was more than 100 ppm less than it is today, there is no compelling reason to believe that the lesser warmth of today has anything at all to do with the air's current much-higher CO2 content.
I have a quote here from another expert in the field:"Yes, that is correct. Light that is absorbed by gases is re-emitted in a random direction. ""The amount of carbon dioxide is enough to absorb all the radiation in the bands where it absorbs within a few meters. So the only effect of an increase in CO2 is to move the location of absorption/re-emission closer to the source".Tom NelsonAre you sure about exactly what is the greenhouse effect? You are not answering the question that I asked in my previoos post?
"CO2 has been as high as 3000ppm,"[O2] used to be zero ppm so it couldn't do any harm to go back to that.From thishttp://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.htmlcited by litespeed..."Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output"And, from the same site"As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”"Shall we just say that the evidence doesn't seem altogether uncontraversial?