Adj. 1. catastrophic - extremely harmful; bringing physical or financial ruin; "a catastrophic depression"; "catastrophic illness"; "a ruinous course of action"
or anything bad?
| EnviroLink Forum http://www.envirolink.org/forum/ |
|
| Geomagnetic Activity as a Plausable climate driver http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19172 |
Page 7 of 7 |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Geomagnetic Activity as a Plausable climate driver |
| Author: | Snowy123 [ Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Geomagnetic Activity as a Plausable climate driver |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Geomagnetic Activity as a Plausable climate driver |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Geomagnetic Activity as a Plausable climate driver |
| Author: | spot1234 [ Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Geomagnetic Activity as a Plausable climate driver |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Geomagnetic Activity as a Plausable climate driver |
Adj. 1. catastrophic - extremely harmful; bringing physical or financial ruin; "a catastrophic depression"; "catastrophic illness"; "a ruinous course of action" or anything bad?
|
|
| Author: | renewable guy [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Geomagnetic Activity as a Plausable climate driver |
| Author: | warmair [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Geomagnetic Activity as a Plausable climate driver |
| Author: | warmair [ Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Geomagnetic Activity as a Plausable climate driver |
| Author: | warmair [ Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Geomagnetic Activity as a Plausable climate driver |
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. |
|
| Page 7 of 7 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|