Global warming

sidicks

Why should there be extra heat if:

1) increased cloud cover leads to increased refection of sunlight back into space leading to increased cooling

2) reduced energy from the sun due to lower sunspots leading to increased cooling

???

And by the way, where is all this 'heat' you talk about at the moment - snow across the globe from North America through to Europe and even Australia?!!


Sidicks

DPinBucks

Those are possible methods by which the Earth deals with the extra heat; they are not arguments against the heat being generated.

The cloud cover argument is totally irrational: what do you think causes the extra clouds? Heat, of course. Why do you think it possible that the extra heat generates exactly enough cloud to revert the temperature to its original value? Thermodynamically, such a stasis (in the absence of other factors) can only be maintained at a higher temperature:
1) Stasis at temperature A;
2) More CO2 -> More heat -> More cloud
3) Stasis at temperature B (B > A) where the extra cloud reflects the same amount of heat energy generated by the extra CO2

Global snow:
Here we go again, again. You are confusing climate with weather. Such excursions of weather (extreme heat or extreme cold) are to be expected when a dynamically stable system such as the Earth's climate is disrupted by feeding in extra energy. It is as valid to blame the current weather on climate change induced by MMGW as it would be for extreme heat in summer. However, as has been said many times, we can still not be certain; and no reputable climatologist is saying we can. Forget Al Gore.

sidicks

But the evidence suggests that more heat -> more CO2, not the other way around:

Caillon 2003,                                        HTML:                                 www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728        "The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (∼240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."




Sidicks

DPinBucks

Exactly. That nicely illustrates the process.Antarctic deglacial warming ('mechanism ... unclear', possibly volcanism);Increased CO2 released by warmer Antarctic oceans;Northern Hemisphere deglaciation induced by greenhouse effect of extra CO2;

sidicks

I do enjoy the way your climate theory excludes any impact from the huge nuclear reactor that is the sun!!

The sun drives the temperature and anything else is second order.  If the sun cools - reduced sun spots, for example - then we'll be glad of any man-made global warming to keep the planet at a barely habitable temperature.

Another ice age anyone?

Tinkering with second order factors whilst ignorning the main cause (which we can't control) is a waste of money.

Much better we stop wasting money on windmills etc and start putting aside money for adapting to changes, which could just as likely be lower temperatures rather than higher.

Sidicks

Ignoring the key

DPinBucks

I've tried to explain all this many times already, but I now give up!! I'm obviously not very good at it.

You can't have a forum discussion with somebody who either refuses to read the other side's posts or who doesn't realise they don't understand the answers.

If anyone else wants to have a shot they are welcome to it. I suggest you start from scratch about the differences between climate & weather, global warming & climate change, and the importance of second-, third- and higher-order effects in chaotic systems.

sidicks

pot, kettle, black....

You've not addressed any of the issues I raised...!


Just remember, climate and weather are the same thing when it suits the believers and totally different when it doesn't..!!

Sidicks

johntheexpat

Climate and weather are completely different except where the media are concerned and for those who want to create doubt and confusion.
Because if you know enough about MMGW and CC to be concerned, you know the difference.

sidicks

So no 'believers' have ever confused weather and climate to create doubt and confusion........??

Sidicks

Toko Black

By believers do you mean the established scientific community ?

To me it seems to be the same type of juggling irrelevant facts, unrelated figures and an accute lack of fundamental understanding of the processes and science envolved that we see used by those arguing that evolution is 'just a theory'.