Solar and GHG effect in vertical temperature of the atmos.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

MSimon wrote:
Josh Cryer wrote:I don't go by temperature, I go by ppm. Whatever ppm was per-industrial should be a goal.
I go by what ppm is best for plants. More plants = more animals.

5,000 ppm is probably optimum. But I will settle for 2,000.
You live in FL right? :lol:
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Josh Cryer wrote:
MSimon wrote:
Josh Cryer wrote:I don't go by temperature, I go by ppm. Whatever ppm was per-industrial should be a goal.
I go by what ppm is best for plants. More plants = more animals.

5,000 ppm is probably optimum. But I will settle for 2,000.
You live in FL right? :lol:
Where I live is an open secret. Look to the left of your screen.

Thought experiment. Copenhagen said we could live with a 2C rise.

Current level is 400 ppm. One doubling then gets us to 800 ppm and 1C. Another doubling gets us to 1,600 ppm and 2C.

Now if the real feedback is .5 (as both Lindzen and Spencer think - for different reasons) Then we are only at 1C rise from two doublings.

Two more doublings then gets us to 6,400 ppm and 2C.

But as I said 2,000 ppm is fine with me.

And if the real feedback is around .9? Well fine. I could go with 1,500 ppm.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

Unfortunately you are talking geologic timescale here, or at least, generational. So. You won't have to live with it.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

It all depends on what the e-folding time is.

100 years as the modelers claim. Or 5 to 10 years as some dissidents claim.

Or am I responding to something you did not imply?

But yeah - if it takes geologic time frames to get to 1,500 ppm I think we are fine.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Josh Cryer wrote:Unfortunately you are talking geologic timescale here, or at least, generational. So. You won't have to live with it.
If we get even a 1 meter rise in 100 years that is not bad. Storm surges are worse. Sometimes much worse.

At the current rate of about 2 mm a year (and even that may be exaggerated) that is 200 mm in 100 years. In English measure - 8 inches. Double that (it is worse than we thought) and you are at about a foot and a half. Hardly most of Florida under water.

And that is from IPCC numbers. Which folks of a suspicious nature think might be cooked. To make it look worse than we thought.

ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/
Sea level could rise by 3.5 to 34.6 inches between 1990 and 2100, making coastal groundwater saltier, endangering wetlands, and inundating valuable land and coastal communities;
Well they sure have that number nailed. The average is 19 inches. The arithmetic mean: 11 inches.

And the most likely IMO? I vote for close to 3.5 inches.

I think Florida is safe. But its ecology is in danger. Manattes are dying from the cold. And so are orange trees. But they are an invasive species so it doesn't matter. Except to people.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

IPCC numbers do not count sea ice melt (dynamical ice flow).

Your 3.5 inches does not fit with the 2 mm/y figure. 90 years left in the century, 180 mm = 7.08 inches.

Sea ice melt is accelerating and the East Antarctic is melting without gaining mass (no one predicted this though Hansen mentioned it was possible, he got laughed at).
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Josh Cryer wrote:IPCC numbers do not count sea ice melt (dynamical ice flow).

Your 3.5 inches does not fit with the 2 mm/y figure. 90 years left in the century, 180 mm = 7.08 inches.

Sea ice melt is accelerating and the East Antarctic is melting without gaining mass (no one predicted this though Hansen mentioned it was possible, he got laughed at).
God it is WORSE THAN I THOUGHT. Twice as bad. We are doomed.

Seven inches. In a ninety years. Anyone under seven inches tall is in big trouble.

Think of the snails. Especially baby snails.

And yeah just a thousand or so years ago when the Vikings farmed Greenland the seas must have been higher. Their villages are now under ice. Doesn't any one care about Vikings any more? That is an extinct species for sure.

The East Arctic will be gone. And then what will we do? I guess we will have to move to the West Antarctic.

And what about the Glaciers in the Himalayas? Gone in thirty five years according to the IPCC.

And you know what? I have incontrovertible proof: What happened to the glacier that used to cover Chicago? Gone. The glacier that used to cover most of Canada? Gone.

It is unprecedented. Terrifying. Scary.

I'm going to send Al Gore all my spare change. After I buy a candy bar with most of it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

MSimon, the scary, doomer, crazy scientists, the ones saying the whole world will end because of global warming... could not predict that ice melt would accelerate at the pace it is.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Josh Cryer wrote:MSimon, the scary, doomer, crazy scientists, the ones saying the whole world will end because of global warming... could not predict that ice melt would accelerate at the pace it is.
Nor are they mentioning that the West Antarctic sheet is growing. D@mn.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 074839.htm

That is from 2002. A little old. Anything more recent? Yep:

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/2009 ... ed+growing

And a few more contradictory reports:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

I really liked this one:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctic_Sea_ ... e_1980.htm

And this one is right tasty, if you like ice:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctic_ice_ ... levels.htm
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Ah yes. My bit above on the Himalayan Glaciers was a false flag operation.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... lting.html
IT WAS a dramatic declaration: glaciers across much of the Himalayas may be gone by 2035. When New Scientist heard this comment from a leading Indian glaciologist, we reported it. That was in 1999. The claim later appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent report - and it turns out that our article is the primary published source.

The glaciologist has never submitted what he says was a speculative comment for peer review - and most of his peers strongly dispute it. So how could such speculation have become an IPCC "finding" which has, moreover, recently been defended by the panel's chairman? We are entitled to an explanation, before rumour and doubt compound the damage to the image of climate science already inflicted by the leaked "climategate" emails.
So after 10 years the magazine apologized for getting it wrong. The Chairman of the IPCC? Well he has other fish to fry.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/10/u ... -interest/

So the reason they could not predict the acceleration of the Himalayan ice melt is that it wasn't happening. I hate it when they can't predict things that aren't happening, don't you?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Think of Grant before Richmond. Every day Lee's lines get a little weaker. One day Lee can no longer hold and two weeks later the war is over.

Global warming hysteria is dying. I can't tell you when it will collapse. But the day is coming.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

MSimon wrote:Nor are they mentioning that the West Antarctic sheet is growing. D@mn.
Extent does not equal mass MSimon.

The glacier thing is admittedly stupid, but it was an error and so far the vast majority of the scientists are not "defending" it.

Big whoop.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Josh Cryer wrote:
MSimon wrote:Nor are they mentioning that the West Antarctic sheet is growing. D@mn.
Extent does not equal mass MSimon.

The glacier thing is admittedly stupid, but it was an error and so far the vast majority of the scientists are not "defending" it.

Big whoop.
Just another little weakening of the line.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

MSimon wrote:Just another little weakening of the line.

The D'Aleo analysis and Chiefio response is way worse.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Josh Cryer wrote:
MSimon wrote:Just another little weakening of the line.

The D'Aleo analysis and Chiefio response is way worse.
Have you seen the latest comment at Chiefio on the subject? A station with what appears to have a raw .5C rise has been adjusted (older temps lower, newer temps higher) to give a 1C rise.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply