Talk-Polywell.org

Many points made by various members of the polywell discussion group are also discussed in this report

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/s ... -chap5.pdf

But I would like to point out three points they made:
1. Increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (which are primarily due to fossil fuel burning) result in largescale
warming of the Earth’s surface and troposphere, and cooling of the stratosphere.
2. Increases in solar irradiance warm globally throughout the atmospheric column (from the surface to the stratosphere).
3. Natural factors have influenced surface and atmospheric temperatures, but cannot fully explain their changes over the past 50 years.

Another climate scientist pointed out that solar causes heating in both stratosphere and the lower atmosphere which made me think about the sun's quantum blackbody radiation and the fact that UV heats the strat.
Whereas the Earth's quantum blackbody radiation is shifted toward IR where it is absorbed by water and CO2, so to me it makes sense that increased GHG is a predictor of changes in the lapse rate. Anyway, I'm not an expert on this and I could be wrong about the reasons, so I leave it to the experts like the report above to give you a better discussion on the subject.

Here is another report regarding solar: http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/publicatio ... L_2009.pdf

A quote, "The Earth’s atmosphere and ocean respond differently to different wavelengths of solar radiation. The UV spectrum is responsible for stratospheric heating, and formation of the ozone layer. The VIS spectrum heats the ocean mixed layer and drives upper oceanic circulation. The NIR directly heats the troposphere by water vapor absorption. Thus the mechanisms by which solar irradiance varies at different wavelengths, and the corresponding mechanisms by which Earth’s climate responds to such variations, are fundamental questions in sun–climate studies."

So by this statement alone and supporting my claim, you can see that the quantum blackbody radiation of the Sun will more evenly affect the atmosphere due to it's higher temp shift toward UV, whereas GHG strongly affects the absorption of the Earth's quantum blackbody radiation which has energy integrated in the IR range due to it's lower thermal temp where absorption by water and CO2 etc are done. The earth's blackbody radiation has very little UV energy associated with it. So these studies can help you to see that GHG is affecting the warming of the planet and the changes in lapse rate indirectly indicates that GHG is having more of an affect (trapping heat) that some would like to believe it does.

The above report concludes,
"This study focuses on the temperature response to spectral in-phase versus out-of-phase decadal variations in SSI. Of course, temperature is not the only climate indicator, and the time scale of climate variations is not only decadal, but also spans centennial and longer periods. Solar activity varies on centennial time scales, as indicated by sunspot variations since the Maunder Minimum in sunspot number. At the same time as these centennial variations of external solar forcing, there are also variations of internal forcing due to increases of greenhouse gases, and changes of aerosol loading due to volcanic and other natural variations, as well as changes in human activities."

AGW is not denied but only shown to be a real part of what the current observational changes that are occuring around the planet right now.

Some predictions based on science and observations:

EL Nino (ENSO) is beginning and should help boost higher temps in some regions this year (2010).

the extended solar minimum of the approx 11 year cycle should be ending since magnetic has reached the 20 degree latitude in the sun and therefore the next decade will see exacerbated warming due to the increase in solar activity.

What we do regarding CO2 emissions is important in the next decade due to what we already have in the pipeline (latency) where we are still not at equilibrium yet regarding temperature effects of AGW. (even if we stop today it will take 20-30 years to reach it).

flying_eagle wrote:So these studies can help you to see that GHG is affecting the warming of the planet and the changes in lapse rate indirectly indicates that GHG is having more of an affect (trapping heat) that some would like to believe it does.

I think your missing the argument against AGW. I think if anything most of the people arguing against AGW agree that warming due to GHG's as a whole are being underestimated. The argument is mostly that the warming from CO2 is utterly dwarfed by the warming from H20. More importantly, what happens to water vapor forcing as temperature increases. The fact that currently models and understanding don't even know which direction to predict for water vapor is extremely good reason to suggest our predictions for overall impact from CO2 is even more poorly understood.

Water vapor is responsible for far more than half of the warming from GHG's and CO2 is responsible for less than 10%. Until we understand the bigger half, I don't buy that we understand the impact of the 10% on the bigger picture. It doesn't take much deviation one way or the other from water vapor to completely counteract the impact of even very large CO2 shifts. If I recall humans are estimated to be behind less than 10% of annual global CO2 emissions. AGW is standing in the realm of a small shift on a small factor in overall GHG warming, of which more than half the natural forcing is understood so poorly that even the sign is uncertain. I say there's still some science needing doing.

bcglorf wrote:

flying_eagle wrote:So these studies can help you to see that GHG is affecting the warming of the planet and the changes in lapse rate indirectly indicates that GHG is having more of an affect (trapping heat) that some would like to believe it does.

I think your missing the argument against AGW. I think if anything most of the people arguing against AGW agree that warming due to GHG's as a whole are being underestimated. The argument is mostly that the warming from CO2 is utterly dwarfed by the warming from H20. More importantly, what happens to water vapor forcing as temperature increases. The fact that currently models and understanding don't even know which direction to predict for water vapor is extremely good reason to suggest our predictions for overall impact from CO2 is even more poorly understood.

Water vapor is responsible for far more than half of the warming from GHG's and CO2 is responsible for less than 10%. Until we understand the bigger half, I don't buy that we understand the impact of the 10% on the bigger picture. It doesn't take much deviation one way or the other from water vapor to completely counteract the impact of even very large CO2 shifts. If I recall humans are estimated to be behind less than 10% of annual global CO2 emissions. AGW is standing in the realm of a small shift on a small factor in overall GHG warming, of which more than half the natural forcing is understood so poorly that even the sign is uncertain. I say there's still some science needing doing.

No one is arguing the effect of H20 as the major GHG. What is important for you to see is we are driving CO2 changes which in turn will drive us toward warmer conditions (1.46w/m2 change) and create more water feedback (the larger part as you know to the GHG effect)
You should read: http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/FCMTheRa ... rVapor.pdf. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publication ... _solar.pdf

Try to explain the water change without accepting C02 as a factor for that change. It's pretty straight forward what drives water vapor. Are you going to use solar variability as your solution to the change in warming?
It is a factor and the rising increase in CO2 is also a factor. We are seeing more signs now as it's concentrations increase that CO2 is the increasing factor which we do have control over. (Btw, at 2ppm/yr increase that is a very large increase in a short geological period of time - athropogenic source)

Of course you could take the track that some deny that any change is going on. But, I guess they may not be aware of ice melting as evidenced by photographs since the introduction of that technology, let alone, mass measurements of today's technology on icesheets.

flying_eagle wrote:What is important for you to see is we are driving CO2 changes which in turn will drive us toward warmer conditions (1.46w/m2 change) and create more water feedback (the larger part as you know to the GHG effect)

Yes, all things being equal more CO2 will drive us to warmer conditions, and we as a species are definitely contributing CO2 to the atmosphere. Increased water vapor from warming is also pretty straight forward. The turn is what sign does that increased water feedback have? Current models pretty commonly use a positive sign, so of course this creates a run away warming scenario. Lucky for us that run away warming scenario was somehow avoided long enough to give us the time to evolve enough to study the phenomena. Perhaps though we weren't that exceptionally lucky and the internal forcing due to water vapor isn't simply a positive constant. It seems more likely the forcing due to water vapor is not a constant, but a function of some fashion, possibly even a function dependent on other factors. Water vapor acts as a GHG, but bright white clouds can block more radiation than they keep in...

flying_eagle wrote:But, I guess they may not be aware of ice melting as evidenced by photographs since the introduction of that technology, let alone, mass measurements of today's technology on icesheets.

We've got about 30 years of Sat pictures showing arctic ice is melting. Don't ignore that we also have pretty convincing evidence that same melting didn't start with human CO2 emissions, but was already in progress for hundreds of years.

bc wrote: We've got about 30 years of Sat pictures showing arctic ice is melting. Don't ignore that we also have pretty convincing evidence that same melting didn't start with human CO2 emissions, but was already in progress for hundreds of years.

Yes, it is best not to confuse natural variability as evidenced in our paleoclimate data with recent Human AGW. Before, we(humans) may have even helped to stabilize the Holocene. But today, we are grossly over burdening the climate system. We do have control over our AGW and that is something people should recognize that we each contribute to.

flying_eagle wrote:

bc wrote: We've got about 30 years of Sat pictures showing arctic ice is melting. Don't ignore that we also have pretty convincing evidence that same melting didn't start with human CO2 emissions, but was already in progress for hundreds of years.

Yes, it is best not to confuse natural variability as evidenced in our paleoclimate data with recent Human AGW. Before, we(humans) may have even helped to stabilize the Holocene. But today, we are grossly over burdening the climate system. We do have control over our AGW and that is something people should recognize that we each contribute to.

Only if you believe the feedback is positive. Which it would be if only WV was considered. But then you have clouds. Which change the albedo.

And then you have the fact that plants grow faster in a higher CO2 environment. And may cool the earth:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_6213771/

Is that in the models? Not that I have heard.

And then there is Svensmark's work. And then we have all the (unknown) work suppressed by the CRU clowns and their confederates.

The current state of climate science? We have no idea what is happening nor the magnitudes. And the CRU folks deleted the raw data.

Not to worry. Some Open Source folks are working on the problems. When their work is completed we will be closer to answers.

bcglorf wrote: Yes, all things being equal more CO2 will drive us to warmer conditions, and we as a species are definitely contributing CO2 to the atmosphere. Increased water vapor from warming is also pretty straight forward. {emphasis added}

Sorry, this is not nailed down either. There is some indication that part of the surface warming that may have been measured is due to a REDUCTION in evaporation due to "global dimming". So not only do we not know the sign of the effect of water vapor/condensate on the albedo, we don't even know the true function of water evaporation rate with CO2, IF ANY.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/13/s ... ince-2000/

The bombshell in that one is that increased CO2 may cause a very slight cooling.

Yeah. The science is settled - by a bunch of frauds. I think it is time the natives came in and removed the settlers.

We have a start. Jones and Mann are under investigation.

MSimon wrote:And then you have the fact that plants grow faster in a higher CO2 environment. And may cool the earth:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_6213771/

Is that in the models? Not that I have heard.

Well, did you look?

http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/2099/20 ... -2009.html

Quaint how you post something from 1987 and I post something from 2009.

MSimon wrote:Yeah. The science is settled - by a bunch of frauds. I think it is time the natives came in and removed the settlers.

The science is never "settled."

Josh Cryer wrote:

MSimon wrote:Yeah. The science is settled - by a bunch of frauds. I think it is time the natives came in and removed the settlers.

The science is never "settled."

Yes. You know it. I know it. And in many areas we are not far apart. But that is not what is being told to the public. And the warmists generally do not trumpet that fact.

And that is the crime.

They have taken a ride with politicians. And when they get inconvenient the politicians will leave them to drown. Or in the current vernacular they will get thrown under the bus.

MSimon wrote:

Josh Cryer wrote:

MSimon wrote:Yeah. The science is settled - by a bunch of frauds. I think it is time the natives came in and removed the settlers.

The science is never "settled."

Yes. You know it. I know it. And in many areas we are not far apart. But that is not what is being told to the public. And the warmists generally do not trumpet that fact.

And that is the crime.

They have taken a ride with politicians. And when they get inconvenient the politicians will leave them to drown. Or in the current vernacular they will get thrown under the bus.

Freude, schoner Gotterfunken,
Tochter als Elysium
Wir betreten Feuertrunken
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum
Deine Zauber binden weider
Was die Mode streng geteilt
Alle Menschen werden Bruder
Wo dein sanfter Flugel weilt.

Diogenes wrote: Freude, schoner Gotterfunken,
Tochter als Elysium
Wir betreten Feuertrunken
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum
Deine Zauber binden weider
Was die Mode streng geteilt
Alle Menschen werden Bruder
Wo dein sanfter Flugel weilt.

:)

Could you translate that into Yiddish? Well my Yiddish is not that good either (I mostly know the swear words). So how about English?

MSimon wrote:

Diogenes wrote: Freude, schoner Gotterfunken,
Tochter als Elysium
Wir betreten Feuertrunken
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum
Deine Zauber binden weider
Was die Mode streng geteilt
Alle Menschen werden Bruder
Wo dein sanfter Flugel weilt.

Could you translate that into Yiddish? Well my Yiddish is not that good either (I mostly know the swear words). So how about English?

Tis a flight of fancy. If the human race could ever get along, I would call it a shpadoinkle day!

(have you ever seen "Canibal: the Muscial! " ? )