EnviroLink Forum

What is CAGW or climate disruption exactly? There is a subjective nature to that terminology that you have already claimed negates the use of any such data to form a clear conclusion.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Oh, come on.

Catastrophic involves any impacts that are bad to the human race.

That is not subjective.

Yes, and if you would stop making unupported claims we would not be doing it again and again.



Anything is possible, but that is not evidence of the effect on cloud cover in any fashion. It is a first step in a series of "if" steps.



Actually it IS one of the main nucleating substances as shown by other research, just not one that cosmic rays have any major impact upon. The fact there is NO evidence of the mechanism that will impact cloud formation from cosmic rays alone or with the multiplication factor of other nucleating agents proves my point very well. Where is the empirical evidence of the mechanism that cosmic rays use to form clouds? H2SO4 and NH4 are not sufficiently supporting to show any measurable impact much less the majority that you have repeatedly quoted as being possible IF some mechanism can be found to make it work.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Really? ANY impacts that are bad to the human race? That would make those who signed fools. Any increase in temperature is going to have at least one bad impact even if it is just the increase in cooling and refrigeration costs.

Most people view catastrophic as being a bit more than anything bad.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Interesting so you think that anyone who thinks that changing the composition of the atmosphere into a state not seen for millions of years will have bad consequences is an extremist?

Adj. 1. catastrophic - extremely harmful; bringing physical or financial ruin; "a catastrophic depression"; "catastrophic illness"; "a ruinous course of action"

or anything bad?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Yes they have. The recent fires in Colorado did not add more CO2 to the atmosphere ? heating water does not produce evaporation ? melting permafrost does not release methane to the atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YegdEOSQotE&feature=player_detailpage



No the opposite is true if we were to take take the earth as a simple black body the temperature would be some 30 deg C cooler than is observed.


You are I think are referring to the what is called the tropical hot spot which has been discussed at great length but in reality is has nothing to do with the green house effect it is simply a predicted consequence of higher global temperatures regardless of the cause.

The data is a problem here as much of it was based on balloon data which is know to have some fairly serious errors in it.


That is very confused. Lets keep it simple the rate at which temperature falls with height is expected to not be as quick, due to GHGs as it where holding on to the heat. This in turn means that the atmosphere is warmer at height where it is easier for the heat to escape to space rather than being reflected to the surface. This is in fact an example of a negative feedback due GHGs but if you accept that it is indeed true then you also have to accept the rest of the predictions in relation to near surface warming.


Please clarify whether you mean relative or specific humidity it makes a huge difference.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution

The main cooling aerosol actually starts out as a gas so I doubt that the above has much relevance. I think there is a confusion here between aerosols and particulates ie dust, but nevertheless the cooling is related to moisture droplets which take on average 8 days to precipitate out of the atmosphere. The question then becomes what area will this spread out over in 8 days but even worse for your argument we know that the aerosol effect is more prominent over the oceans due to the way in which certain gases released by organisms react with sulphate aerosols. So taking the area of land that has high levels of aerosols is not a smart way to do the calculation.
The best examples of aerosol cooling are provided by major volcanic eruptions where we can clearly see their cooling effect on a global scale despite the fact that they are tiny by comparison.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution

A few notes on climate sensitivity
Sensitivity means how much warming we can expect from one extra watt of surface radiation.
This is expressed as °C/(W/m2)
Several methods have been used to arrive at an answer
the two I like are:-
1 The temperature during the last ice age was 5.5 Deg c cooler than today and the difference in surface radiation is estimated to be 7.3W/m2 giving a figure of 0.75°C/(W/m2)

2 The difference between solar maximum and solar minimum is 1.3 W/m2 but this is the amount of power arriving at the earth's plane this has to be reduced by 30% to account for albedo and by a factor of 4 because the earth is sphere and not flat. The temperature difference from peak to trough is estimated to be about 0.18 °C. This translates to 0.2275 W/m2 against 0.18°C or 0.79 °C/(W/m2) but it is probably an underestimate due to lag effects.

There is no dispute that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase surface surface radiation by 3.7 W/m2. There is a high level of confidence in this figure. It is often expressed in the form that a doubling of CO2 would directly increase temperature by 1 °C provided no other factors are involved but they are so we get:-
3.7 W/m2 for CO2
and 0.77°C/(W/m2)
Therefore we can expect the temperature to rise by at least 2.85°C for a doubling of CO2.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution