|
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
In article ,
Nick Hull wrote: [...] Tryin with some easy values: Y = cubert(100 * 3600 * 30 / 3) = cubert(3.6E3) =150+a little "You mean this is highway 80 and the speed limit is 65! Well in that case, I'm gald you didn't catch me on the 205 last night." Your calculations failed to include the increased failure rate at high speed and the increased shakedown from the cops ;) I had a friend who told me that if you drive over 135 MPH you never get speeding tickets. I think he may have been right. I figure that if we raised the speed limit to 200 MPH, people would stop speeding. -- -- forging knowledge |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
"Ken Smith" wrote in message
... In article , Nick Hull wrote: [...] Tryin with some easy values: Y = cubert(100 * 3600 * 30 / 3) = cubert(3.6E3) =150+a little "You mean this is highway 80 and the speed limit is 65! Well in that case, I'm gald you didn't catch me on the 205 last night." Your calculations failed to include the increased failure rate at high speed and the increased shakedown from the cops ;) I had a friend who told me that if you drive over 135 MPH you never get speeding tickets. I think he may have been right. Not so. My boss got nailed in 1971 doing 140 mph on I-70 near Clare, Michigan. The good side was that he let me drive his TVR Vixen for six months, as long as I would drive him to work. g -- Ed Huntress |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
In rec.crafts.metalworking Don Klipstein wrote:
(snip) Looks like a typical coal fired power plant emits into the environment (including within-a-decade-appearing decay products) about 42-43 millicuries annually. I don't know what the average annual leakage from nuclear plants and waste storage facilities are, but I surely doubt the NRC would let me dump 42 millicuries per year of anything into the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, landfills, etc. It appears to me that if a nuclear plant near me leaked 43 millicuries of anything into a river or into the air, it would be news. - Don Klipstein ) Yep, but because it is a 'coal' plant rather than a 'nuclear' plant, it doesn't seem to show up on their radar. Btw, nice description of what happens that I snipped. Thank you. Also, it has been about 2 days and Grame/Poo Bear hasn't responded. I hope it is because he read up on the links provided. Todd |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
In rec.crafts.metalworking Todd Rich wrote:
(snip) Also, it has been about 2 days and Grame/Poo Bear hasn't responded. I hope it is because he read up on the links provided. Todd Sorry to follow up on myself, but I should have checked the spelling first. Graham/Pooh Bear |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote: [...] Not so. My boss got nailed in 1971 doing 140 mph on I-70 near Clare, Michigan. The good side was that he let me drive his TVR Vixen for six months, as long as I would drive him to work. g Did he get a speeding ticket or did they just charge him with dangerous driving and yank the permit? -- -- forging knowledge |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
"Ken Smith" wrote in message
... In article , Ed Huntress wrote: [...] Not so. My boss got nailed in 1971 doing 140 mph on I-70 near Clare, Michigan. The good side was that he let me drive his TVR Vixen for six months, as long as I would drive him to work. g Did he get a speeding ticket or did they just charge him with dangerous driving and yank the permit? He paid a huge fine and lost his license for six months. I don't think I ever knew what the actual charge was. But it was not his first offense. g BTW, that was I-75, not I-70. I got his Vixen up to almost 145 on I-496. It was around 5:00 AM and the road was empty at the time. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:00:48 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Ken Smith" wrote in message ... In article , Ed Huntress wrote: [...] Not so. My boss got nailed in 1971 doing 140 mph on I-70 near Clare, Michigan. The good side was that he let me drive his TVR Vixen for six months, as long as I would drive him to work. g Did he get a speeding ticket or did they just charge him with dangerous driving and yank the permit? He paid a huge fine and lost his license for six months. I don't think I ever knew what the actual charge was. But it was not his first offense. g BTW, that was I-75, not I-70. I got his Vixen up to almost 145 on I-496. It was around 5:00 AM and the road was empty at the time. d8-) That's how I got my recent ticket... "the road was empty at the time" when I spotted the motorcycle cop through a gap in the trees ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Anyone can be rude, but it takes a Democrat to be a real dirtbag. |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
Spehro Pefhany wrote: On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:02:46 GMT, the renowned Nick Hull wrote: Your calculations failed to include the increased failure rate at high speed and the increased shakedown from the cops ;) cue Kraftwerk " fahren farhren fahren auf der Autobahn " IIRC. Graham |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
Ken Smith wrote: I had a friend who told me that if you drive over 135 MPH you never get speeding tickets. I think he may have been right. Certainly doesn't work in the UK. Graham |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
Todd Rich wrote: Also, it has been about 2 days and Grame/Poo Bear hasn't responded. Been busy with real life. I hope it is because he read up on the links provided. I briefly looked at your post and clearly will have to digest it at length. As for the plutonium created by thermal reactors you should presumably be aware of the fuss it can cause. See Iran. BNFL re-processes Japanese fuel btw and as part of the agreemnt ( possibly enforced by the IAEA ? ) has to return the separated plutonium to Japan. A 'touchy' political issue and one that they 'don't like to talk about '. How familiar are you with Britain's BNFL and its plant at Sellafield and the trouble it's caused ? Graham |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
Ken Smith wrote: In article , Ed Huntress wrote: [...] Not so. My boss got nailed in 1971 doing 140 mph on I-70 near Clare, Michigan. The good side was that he let me drive his TVR Vixen for six months, as long as I would drive him to work. g Did he get a speeding ticket or did they just charge him with dangerous driving and yank the permit? In the UK getting caught over 100 mph is typically good for at least a 1 month ban. OTT IMHO. Graham |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
Pooh Bear wrote:
Sadly, I suspect it may indeed be too late. Bye-bye Florida ( for example ). Graham Still trying to get rid of me, I see! ;-) -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
|
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
In article ,
Jim Thompson wrote: That's how I got my recent ticket... "the road was empty at the time" when I spotted the motorcycle cop through a gap in the trees ;-) ...Jim Thompson Motorcycles drive poorly if a couple of gallons of water heavily laced with Dawn is dropped on the road ;) -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
Nick Hull wrote: In article , Jim Thompson wrote: That's how I got my recent ticket... "the road was empty at the time" when I spotted the motorcycle cop through a gap in the trees ;-) ...Jim Thompson Motorcycles drive poorly if a couple of gallons of water heavily laced with Dawn is dropped on the road ;) What's 'Dawn' ? Detergent ? Graham |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
Don Klipstein wrote: In article , Keith wrote: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:48:44 -0800, carneyke wrote: Looks like Global Warming has really taken it's toll on the East Coast today. I hope the liberals at large have lots of fun shoveling this Gloabl Warming trend. Broke records in NYCity's Central Park and closed all the major airports. Heard Boston got more of this Global Warming ! I'll take the 10 degree above normal Januarary we had. Oh sorry forgot, Global Warming caused this blizzard shutting down the liberal bastion of the US. Keep Shoveling Libs, keep shoveling.... Nah, you've been reading the leftist NY (Pinko) Times and the Bean-Town (what was that smell) GLOBE again. No snow at all here. ...not one flake. I have seen "global warming" survive the "Blizzard of 1996" that officially dumped slightly over 30 inches onto Philadelphia - whose previous record since 1875 was 22.3 inches (set in 1983). And I somewhat remember Boston breaking a snowfall record last winter... They had a storm to match or slightly outdo two 1977 ones that then set new single-storm snowfall records in Boston! And how about that "Blizzard of 1993" - some locations hit by that one had records broken, including a new record of 10 inches in Birmingham and Syracuse NY breaking its previous record set by the "Great Blizzard of 1888". Looks like some recent record-big blizzards did not stop the world from having its hottest year on record as a continuation of a recent-decades upward trend, and less lignificantly the USA from having its hottest January on record - should one more blizzard make much difference? - Don Klipstein ) The amount of snow is not important, that is just showing the amount of moisture the storm had(hmm).What about record lows and highs, wouldn't that be morte relevent? From that land that never winters Tangnet |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
In rec.crafts.metalworking Pooh Bear wrote:
Todd Rich wrote: Also, it has been about 2 days and Grame/Poo Bear hasn't responded. Been busy with real life. It happens. I go through that a lot myself. Sorry about the misspelling. I hope it is because he read up on the links provided. I briefly looked at your post and clearly will have to digest it at length. Thank you. As for the plutonium created by thermal reactors you should presumably be aware of the fuss it can cause. See Iran. Yep, it can be used as a shortcut to a nuclear weapons program. The uranium only need to be weakly enriched to function as a fuel in a nuclear reactor, and produces Pu as a byproduct when the U238 captures a neutron and becomes Pu239. Since it is a different element, it can be fairly easily chemically extracted from the fuel rod. As opposed to reacting Uranium with Fluorine to produce Uranium Hexaflouride gas, centrifuging it to extract the U235 many, many, times until you have a high enough concentraction to use in a nuclear bomb. Thorium reactors on the other hand don't really produce isotopes that are easily made into bombs. While the U233 can be used in making a nuclear bomb, it usually has a fair amount of U232 with it which makes it very difficult to handle for that purpose. BNFL re-processes Japanese fuel btw and as part of the agreemnt ( possibly enforced by the IAEA ? ) has to return the separated plutonium to Japan. A 'touchy' political issue and one that they 'don't like to talk about '. How familiar are you with Britain's BNFL and its plant at Sellafield and the trouble it's caused ? Not that familiar, but I did look into it a bit since you mentioned it. It looks like most of the problems they are having there are related to difficulties they are having with the back end of the process. Crucibles used to vitrify the liquid waste aren't lasting as long as they should, and disposal of the crucibles isn't going as easily as it should, possibly due to equipment purchased for that not performing to claims. They need to either stop reprocessing fuel rods until they have processed the liquid waste they have on hand and vitrify it, or build more capacity to handle the liquid waste. The spent fuel rods can be stored relatively safely while the backlog of HAL is vitrified. Sounds like the regulators need to put their foot down. (Btw, I am definately in favor of tight regulation and control of nuclear power and waste processing.) I could easily have missed other problems, but it does look like that is the root cause of most of their problems. That and workers there ignoring alarms. Graham Todd |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
In article ,
Pooh Bear wrote: Nick Hull wrote: In article , Jim Thompson wrote: That's how I got my recent ticket... "the road was empty at the time" when I spotted the motorcycle cop through a gap in the trees ;-) ...Jim Thompson Motorcycles drive poorly if a couple of gallons of water heavily laced with Dawn is dropped on the road ;) What's 'Dawn' ? Detergent ? Graham Yes ;) -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
Bugger off. And go home.
Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH & Endowment Member NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder Pooh Bear wrote: "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote: That storm that hit the East coast was from Africa Top-posting NRA fathead ! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article oaKIf.32815$jR.27721@fed1read01, Mark Fergerson wrote in part: BTW, global temperatures regularly go through wide excursions, often lasting much longer than the miniscule periods Ecologistas want to talk about (say 1800-today). Frinst, the dinosaurs got along quite nicely for dozens of megayears with the global temperature a good five degrees warmer than today's most pessimistic average estimates. Frinst, at the beginning of the Triassic, global temps averaged 50-60F. Granted there was a lot of desertification, but there was only one continent straddling the equator for much of that period. Today's continental arrangement proffers different global heat distribution. And of course, dinos didn't have air conditioning. ;) Besides, the Solar Constant isn't; the sun has steadily gotten brighter since it first lit up, and is going through a short-term "bright" phase despite the current relatively low sunspot count (cf. "Maunder Minimum"). I have heard of a roughly 110 year "supercycle" or roughly 10 of the 11 year cycles, and solar output varies basically inversely with the sunspot count. I think the minimum was around the sunspot peak of around 1970, maybe around the sunspot peak of around 1980 but I am not positive. Yup, yup, and yup, pretty much. There are climate cycles not solely dependent on insolation. One of the better Wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation has a chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M...Variations.png correlating glaciations and various Earth-orbital peccadilloes along with insolation. Notice where we are now, and what the chart predicts for the near future. Compare with another graph from the same page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...GISS_model.gif I think it is worth comparing global temperatures to where they were 110 years ago. It might be if we had data as good as we can get today, but there's a lot of wiggle room inferring historical insolation from things like extrapolating from fossil tree-ring thickness on different continents and even the interpretation of fairly reliable satellite data. Mark L. Fergerson |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
In article 9%1Kf.592$LG3.510@fed1read01, Mark Fergerson wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote: I have heard of a roughly 110 year "supercycle" or roughly 10 of the 11 year cycles, and solar output varies basically inversely with the sunspot count. I think the minimum was around the sunspot peak of around 1970, maybe around the sunspot peak of around 1980 but I am not positive. There are climate cycles not solely dependent on insolation. One of the better Wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation Thanks - I had some wrong ideas on sunspot cycles. Although the article appeared to me to largely supported the recent-decades increase on global temperatures being mostly caused by greenhouse gases. has a chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M...Variations.png correlating glaciations and various Earth-orbital peccadilloes along with insolation. Notice where we are now, and what the chart predicts for the near future. Looks like the eccentricity one has more effect than anything else. That one said it was a combination of 95, 125 and 400 kiloyear cycles. Compare with another graph from the same page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...GISS_model.gif I think it is worth comparing global temperatures to where they were 110 years ago. That one does show what appears to be a deviation of solar output from whatever "normal" is, and that does have a fair amount of positive correlation with global temperature over the period covered (the years 1850 to 2000). But am I interpreting this correctly to mean that since about 1950-1960 we have been getting about .2 watt per square meter more sunlight than we got in the late 1800's? That does not sound to me enough to account for what global average surface temperature has done since then. - Don Klipstein ) |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:42:32 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote: In article 9%1Kf.592$LG3.510@fed1read01, Mark Fergerson wrote: Don Klipstein wrote: I have heard of a roughly 110 year "supercycle" or roughly 10 of the 11 year cycles, and solar output varies basically inversely with the sunspot count. I think the minimum was around the sunspot peak of around 1970, maybe around the sunspot peak of around 1980 but I am not positive. There are climate cycles not solely dependent on insolation. One of the better Wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation Thanks - I had some wrong ideas on sunspot cycles. Although the article appeared to me to largely supported the recent-decades increase on global temperatures being mostly caused by greenhouse gases. has a chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M...Variations.png correlating glaciations and various Earth-orbital peccadilloes along with insolation. Notice where we are now, and what the chart predicts for the near future. Looks like the eccentricity one has more effect than anything else. That one said it was a combination of 95, 125 and 400 kiloyear cycles. Compare with another graph from the same page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...GISS_model.gif I think it is worth comparing global temperatures to where they were 110 years ago. That one does show what appears to be a deviation of solar output from whatever "normal" is, and that does have a fair amount of positive correlation with global temperature over the period covered (the years 1850 to 2000). But am I interpreting this correctly to mean that since about 1950-1960 we have been getting about .2 watt per square meter more sunlight than we got in the late 1800's? That does not sound to me enough to account for what global average surface temperature has done since then. - Don Klipstein ) According to edgar cayce global warming is just a precursor to the poles about to shift. Was on the history channel yesterday, anyone see it? |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
In article ,
Joseph Gwinn wrote in part: In , Don Klipstein wrote: But am I interpreting this correctly to mean that since about 1950-1960 we have been getting about .2 watt per square meter more sunlight than we got in the late 1800's? That does not sound to me enough to account for what global average surface temperature has done since then. The average temperature of the Earth (atmosphere) is 288 degrees Kelvin, so a one degree Kelvin change is 1/288= 0.00347, or about 0.35%. At this level of precision, everything matters. Since the late 1800's, worldwide surface-level atmospheric temperature has increased not quite 1 degree Kelvin, let's say for the sake of argument .3%. In a first order of approximation, temperature of an object heated and cooled by radiation and at equilibrium between incoming and outgoing radiation is proportional to 4th root of the amount of radiation going each way. So in a first order of approximation, the sun's output would have to increase 1.205% to raise the world's temperature by .3%, or 1.395% to raise the world's temperature by 1 degree Kelvin. What's the "solar constant" - about 1370 watts per square meter? I don't see an increase of .2 watt per square meter making the world nearly a degree K warmer. - Don Klipstein ) |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:42:32 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote: Thanks - I had some wrong ideas on sunspot cycles. Although the article appeared to me to largely supported the recent-decades increase on global temperatures being mostly caused by greenhouse gases. Or, possibly, the increase in greenhouse gasses being caused by global warming. John |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:01:58 -0800, John Larkin
wrote: On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:42:32 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: Thanks - I had some wrong ideas on sunspot cycles. Although the article appeared to me to largely supported the recent-decades increase on global temperatures being mostly caused by greenhouse gases. Or, possibly, the increase in greenhouse gasses being caused by global warming. John Sounds plausible to me ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts. |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
In , John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:42:32 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: Thanks - I had some wrong ideas on sunspot cycles. Although the article appeared to me to largely supported the recent-decades increase on global temperatures being mostly caused by greenhouse gases. Or, possibly, the increase in greenhouse gasses being caused by global warming. Do you remember the thread roughly a year ago when someone claimed that increasing solar output caused global warming and that caused the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? Someone even posted a web cite for this with a bad number for amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by human activity. And then I looked into how much CO2 the atmosphere gained and how much CO2 was dumped into the atmosphere by human activity. As I remember this, it surely appeared that human activity slightly more than accounted for the increase in atmospheric CO2, meaning nature actually removed a little from the atmosphere. I don't have absolute proof that recent-decades global warming has been caused by greenhouse gases dumped into the atmosphere by human activity, as opposed to some natural cycle affecting ocean currents and/or cloud cover and/or cloud location and/or snowpacks (those affect absorption of sunlight). But it really appears, at least to me, that human burning of fossil fuels is a prime suspect for the increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the numbers are close. Of course, I have yet to see proof beyond all reasonable doubt that there's no chance that nature normally regulates the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere well and would have removed from the atmosphere the extra that human activity adds if not for some recent shift in populations of wildlife that have an affect on atmospheric CO2, such as insects and/or microbes eating organic matter and exhaling CO2 and/or plants/algae converting atmospheric CO2 to organic matter. Then again, I don't believe we should go on burning fossil fuels the way we have been until the evidence that this is causing the world to get warmer reaches the strength necessarily to properly convict a murderer. - Don Klipstein ) |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
|
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
Jim Thompson wrote: On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:01:58 -0800, John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:42:32 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: Thanks - I had some wrong ideas on sunspot cycles. Although the article appeared to me to largely supported the recent-decades increase on global temperatures being mostly caused by greenhouse gases. Or, possibly, the increase in greenhouse gasses being caused by global warming. John Sounds plausible to me ;-) ...Jim Thompson If there were another plausible reason for global warming maybe. Graham |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
John Larkin wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:37:13 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: Of course, I have yet to see proof beyond all reasonable doubt that there's no chance that nature normally regulates the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere well and would have removed from the atmosphere the extra that human activity adds if not for some recent shift in populations of wildlife that have an affect on atmospheric CO2, such as insects and/or microbes eating organic matter and exhaling CO2 and/or plants/algae converting atmospheric CO2 to organic matter. Then again, I don't believe we should go on burning fossil fuels the way we have been until the evidence that this is causing the world to get warmer reaches the strength necessarily to properly convict a murderer. "Should" is good, but it's not going to happen. We'll quit burning fossil fuels when they run out; and by then there will be another hundred thousand power plants and another billion cars in China and India I doubt that frankly. The simple cost of fuel is likely to inhibit those numbers. and Africa. Africa will never get there. No industrialisation. I think that's the reality. I don't. Graham |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 02:22:13 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:01:58 -0800, John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:42:32 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: Thanks - I had some wrong ideas on sunspot cycles. Although the article appeared to me to largely supported the recent-decades increase on global temperatures being mostly caused by greenhouse gases. Or, possibly, the increase in greenhouse gasses being caused by global warming. John Sounds plausible to me ;-) ...Jim Thompson If there were another plausible reason for global warming maybe. How about the latest ice age being over? Now all we need is a plausible explanation for ice ages. John |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
|
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
In article ,
Joseph Gwinn wrote: In article , (Don Klipstein) wrote: Since the late 1800's, worldwide surface-level atmospheric temperature has increased not quite 1 degree Kelvin, let's say for the sake of argument .3%. In a first order of approximation, temperature of an object heated and cooled by radiation and at equilibrium between incoming and outgoing radiation is proportional to 4th root of the amount of radiation going each way. So in a first order of approximation, the sun's output would have to increase 1.205% to raise the world's temperature by .3%, or 1.395% to raise the world's temperature by 1 degree Kelvin. What's the "solar constant" - about 1370 watts per square meter? I don't see an increase of 0.2 watt per square meter making the world nearly a degree K warmer. If that were all there was to it. I've seen plots in Science some years ago where solar sunspot cycles were correlated with earth temperature cycles. They looked similar, although nobody had a good theory as to why there should be any connection all. Or why there could not. The theories of the day revolved around variations in cloud cover due to increases and decreases in ionizing radiation from the Sun. Who knows if this is correct, but when the effect is ~0.3%, it doesn't take much of a difference to be a cause. Nor are the present day climate models anywhere near good enough to predict such things from first principles. Such models would need to be at least ten times more precise, or about 0.03%, to reliably predict 0.3%-level effects. Maybe someday. It's a hard problem. Research continues, and someday will come one day. I would want being kept in mind that .2 watt per square meter out of 1370 in sunlight strength is about .015%, and first-order/most-oversimplified predicted effect on temperature is 1/4 of that or .00375%. Because of this, I do see the need to give at least some fair amount of weight to proposed causes other than sunlight increase for the past-century warmup of global-average surface-level atmosphere temperature by a good .3% - especially with that increase showing lack of signs of leveling off really soon. - Don Klipstein ) |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote: In article , Joseph Gwinn wrote: In article , (Don Klipstein) wrote: Since the late 1800's, worldwide surface-level atmospheric temperature has increased not quite 1 degree Kelvin, let's say for the sake of argument .3%. In a first order of approximation, temperature of an object heated and cooled by radiation and at equilibrium between incoming and outgoing radiation is proportional to 4th root of the amount of radiation going each way. So in a first order of approximation, the sun's output would have to increase 1.205% to raise the world's temperature by .3%, or 1.395% to raise the world's temperature by 1 degree Kelvin. What's the "solar constant" - about 1370 watts per square meter? I don't see an increase of 0.2 watt per square meter making the world nearly a degree K warmer. If that were all there was to it. I've seen plots in Science some years ago where solar sunspot cycles were correlated with earth temperature cycles. They looked similar, although nobody had a good theory as to why there should be any connection all. Or why there could not. The theories of the day revolved around variations in cloud cover due to increases and decreases in ionizing radiation from the Sun. Who knows if this is correct, but when the effect is ~0.3%, it doesn't take much of a difference to be a cause. Nor are the present day climate models anywhere near good enough to predict such things from first principles. Such models would need to be at least ten times more precise, or about 0.03%, to reliably predict 0.3%-level effects. Maybe someday. It's a hard problem. Research continues, and someday will come one day. I would want being kept in mind that .2 watt per square meter out of 1370 in sunlight strength is about .015%, and first-order/most-oversimplified predicted effect on temperature is 1/4 of that or .00375%. Because of this, I do see the need to give at least some fair amount of weight to proposed causes other than sunlight increase for the past-century warmup of global-average surface-level atmosphere temperature by a good .3% - especially with that increase showing lack of signs of leveling off really soon. I do generally agree, although I do recall some reports in one of the science magazines about discussions on just how constant the solar constant has been. This is just about impossible to measure with sufficient accuracy without a satellite carrying a purpose-built instrument, and such satellites and instruments have not been around all that long. And long-term calibration of the instruments isn't exactly easy either. Joe Gwinn |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:10:16 -0800, John Larkin
wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 02:22:13 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:01:58 -0800, John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:42:32 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: Thanks - I had some wrong ideas on sunspot cycles. Although the article appeared to me to largely supported the recent-decades increase on global temperatures being mostly caused by greenhouse gases. Or, possibly, the increase in greenhouse gasses being caused by global warming. John Sounds plausible to me ;-) ...Jim Thompson If there were another plausible reason for global warming maybe. How about the latest ice age being over? Now all we need is a plausible explanation for ice ages. John Hell..thats obvious. All the prior ice ages were caused by global industrialization and the internal combustion engine/ Gunner "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:37:13 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote: In , John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:42:32 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: Thanks - I had some wrong ideas on sunspot cycles. Although the article appeared to me to largely supported the recent-decades increase on global temperatures being mostly caused by greenhouse gases. Or, possibly, the increase in greenhouse gasses being caused by global warming. Do you remember the thread roughly a year ago when someone claimed that increasing solar output caused global warming and that caused the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? Someone even posted a web cite for this with a bad number for amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by human activity. And then I looked into how much CO2 the atmosphere gained and how much CO2 was dumped into the atmosphere by human activity. As I remember this, it surely appeared that human activity slightly more than accounted for the increase in atmospheric CO2, meaning nature actually removed a little from the atmosphere. I don't have absolute proof that recent-decades global warming has been caused by greenhouse gases dumped into the atmosphere by human activity, as opposed to some natural cycle affecting ocean currents and/or cloud cover and/or cloud location and/or snowpacks (those affect absorption of sunlight). But it really appears, at least to me, that human burning of fossil fuels is a prime suspect for the increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the numbers are close. Of course, I have yet to see proof beyond all reasonable doubt that there's no chance that nature normally regulates the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere well and would have removed from the atmosphere the extra that human activity adds if not for some recent shift in populations of wildlife that have an affect on atmospheric CO2, such as insects and/or microbes eating organic matter and exhaling CO2 and/or plants/algae converting atmospheric CO2 to organic matter. Then again, I don't believe we should go on burning fossil fuels the way we have been until the evidence that this is causing the world to get warmer reaches the strength necessarily to properly convict a murderer. - Don Klipstein ) I wonder Don...given the graphs on the Wiki link...do you think the other rises over the last 400k were the result of human CO2 generation? Gunner "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article 9%1Kf.592$LG3.510@fed1read01, Mark Fergerson wrote: Don Klipstein wrote: I have heard of a roughly 110 year "supercycle" or roughly 10 of the 11 year cycles, and solar output varies basically inversely with the sunspot count. I think the minimum was around the sunspot peak of around 1970, maybe around the sunspot peak of around 1980 but I am not positive. There are climate cycles not solely dependent on insolation. One of the better Wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation Thanks - I had some wrong ideas on sunspot cycles. You aren't alone. Although the article appeared to me to largely supported the recent-decades increase on global temperatures being mostly caused by greenhouse gases. But as you wonder later, where are they coming from? Who'd have thought of cow farts and vulcanism being significant contributors, or the possibility of methane-ice blowoffs from the deep ocean bed? Who knows what else is going on out there that we'll never find out about because Chicken Little is gaining control of the research purse strings? has a chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M...Variations.png correlating glaciations and various Earth-orbital peccadilloes along with insolation. Notice where we are now, and what the chart predicts for the near future. Looks like the eccentricity one has more effect than anything else. That one said it was a combination of 95, 125 and 400 kiloyear cycles. How about that? I marvel at Chicken Little-types panicking over a short-term blip due to one factor like fluorocarbon use while ignoring the slow, steady, inexorable changes that we cannot hope to control[1]. Compare with another graph from the same page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...GISS_model.gif I think it is worth comparing global temperatures to where they were 110 years ago. That one does show what appears to be a deviation of solar output from whatever "normal" is, and that does have a fair amount of positive correlation with global temperature over the period covered (the years 1850 to 2000). As you say, we aren't all that sure what "normal" is. Hell, we didn't even know it changed until recently. I'm extremely leery of people plugging current numbers into models and making predictions on the assumption that whatever's driving the current numbers won't change. But am I interpreting this correctly to mean that since about 1950-1960 we have been getting about .2 watt per square meter more sunlight than we got in the late 1800's? That does not sound to me enough to account for what global average surface temperature has done since then. My point is that Chicken Little-types grab onto the first thing that agrees with their claims, but studiously ignore all the other variables like Krakatoa in 1883. I marvel that they want to yank the few knobs we do have control over all the way to "off" on the strength of questionable modelling, while ignoring the knobs we can never reach much less turn[1]. [1] Assuming we don't ever get around to moving planets etc. around for our convenience. Mark L. Fergerson |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
In article ,
John Larkin wrote: [....] How about the latest ice age being over? Now all we need is a plausible explanation for ice ages. How about a lack of green house gasses. It sounds like we may have two 90 degree phase lags here. -- -- forging knowledge |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:44:33 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote: Nor are the present day climate models anywhere near good enough to predict such things from first principles. Such models would need to be at least ten times more precise, or about 0.03%, to reliably predict 0.3%-level effects. Maybe someday. It's a hard problem. Research continues, and someday will come one day. Maybe not. Climate is a chaotic, unstable system with lots of external, noisy inputs. It may never be accurately, or even usefully, modeled. And if you could model the respone of climate to external and internal events, you'd then have to model the internal dynamics of the earth and the sun, and all the gamma-ray sources in the galaxy. John |
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast !
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter