Assuming its the water vapour part that you are commenting on then you are wrong. Water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas, clouds reflect heat, they are not the same.
One reason for increased temps is less cloud cover. Cloud cover has reduced since the various clean air acts came into effect. There was even a measurable increase in temps after 11/9 when the airplanes were grounded as there were less clouds.
I would not be surprised if the cold spells in the 40s/50s were due to air pollution causing more cloud cover. There was an awful lot of pollution due to the war and post war rebuilding.
Of course there is no way to actually prove it as they didn't keep detailed records AFAIK.
It doesn't help your argument to just keep repeating the same stuff and not presenting any evidence either.
So you are now claiming human life wasn't about 30,000 years ago? It is perfectly clear to most that human life was around when the temps were both colder and hotter than they are now.
8<
Well if you choose to look at the graphs for say ten thousand years rather than 100 you will notice we are in a dip and that we may be heading up out of that dip (or we may not be, its hard to tell).
That's the trouble with climate change fanatics, they forget that the climate has been changing for millennia and that they don't have the answers, just a few mathematical models that are susceptible to proving what the model maker wants to prove.
Remember the *only* evidence you have is the mathematical models. Nothing else is predicting what is going to happen.
nightjar > As to ice accumulation in the Antarctic ISTM that that is due to increased
I wasn't aware of any increase in sea ice (and don't have time to check atm) but memory suggests that Larsen A (sp?) has just gone the same way as Larsen B.
Hardly widely. The author was unable to find the source of the rumour which is typical for propaganda that has no basis in fact.
What disappointed me a bit about that site was that it didn't make clear whether of not the figures quoted for water vapour included or excluded the reflective value of clouds in keeping out solar radiation in the first place. ...
Doesn't look that way to me.
formatting link
....
ISTR the figures 600000 for repeats and 640000 since last eruption so
40000 years overdue already.
My reference to absence of sunspots was to the current bottom of the sunspot cycle, not a late or prolonged absence as in the Maunder minimum.
The link would appear to be increased solar radiation with increased sunspots.
Hmm, I dont think that's true. There have been (er) "super-tropical" periods in earth's history that would support human life, when atmospheric CO2 was higher (IIRC). The problem we face is that instead of a gradual transition taking many millenia, we face a forced one taking centuries, with detectable shifts on decade timescales. This will impact on both the wider environment and on human agriculture. Still, what's a billion or so starving humans? Nothing to worry about at all. Unless maybe they've got guns or something. :-/
Discussions around supersaturation, dew points, pressure, and triggers for condensation aside if we take your simplistic 100% at face value for the moment...
At levels below "100%" the air contains a great deal of water vapour which acts as a "greenhouse gas" - effects are not limited to condensed water.
Clouds tend to occur in strata whereas the rest of the atmosphere containing nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, water vapour (uncondensed) etc goes all the way up.
Clouds do not reflect 100% of the radiation coming from the sun.
The causes of human starvation are far more immediate and substantial than speculation around AGW. Thing like over-population, over exploitation of natural resources and plain simple greed & corruption have more to do millions in poverty & starvation.
On a serious note I am considering some sort of solar pre-heat to the water at home, but only if a pile of suitable gubbins to build it happens to fall into my lap - it doesn't seem very economical to go out and buy parts.
It'd probably do something useful for 6 months of the year, anyway (it's been 80 degrees out the last few days, but OTOH we had snow in October last year; I've probably got another four weeks of useful outdoor weather before the temperature crashes)
In Italy I'm installing a thermal store fed by two 20-tube solar panels. However in the meantime I have 100 metres of black polypipe laid across the lawn connected to the hot water inlet in the barn. In August this was supplying enough hot water for all our domestic needs. Four showers a day plus handwashing and all the washing up. It's so good that I'm tempted to make a permanent fixture of it, possibly to use for pre-heating water.
It is often difficult to see precisely what Dennis is getting at. Given the emphasis on large I assumed he meant the whole history of the world of which human history is an extremely small part of the recent past. Of course 'large' to Dennis may well be a considerably small proportion than most of us would expect.
The medieval warm period was not as warm as today even if it was global rather than just a European event and I can find nothing to suggest temperatures possibly in excess of the present closer than 3000 years ago. I think you would have to be very careful in picking the limit in order to get to 50% with higher average temperatures than the present but the Wikipedia article* I have been looking at has what appears to be a log scale, not the easiest of things to divide proportionately.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no.
Facts don't change, hence the repetition.
You said it was colder now than it has been for a large part of history without saying what you meant by large part or the time span of your history.
Given that the first could be looked at as an either/or 'large' should be the greater part of the whole but no doubt you can weasel out of that quite easily.
As to the time span of your history did you mean?
Recorded history (say 5000 years) Duration of h*mo sapiens (say 150,000 years) Duration of O2 breathing life on this planet Duration of the planet from its earliest days The whole works from the Big Bang None of the above
You don't give a link to that graph but I don't suppose it matters. Try the link below for the mainstream opinion.
formatting link
The evidence we have is considerable:
Changes in temperature Changes in atmospheric composition Results from innumerable experiments And no doubt numerous others that I can't think of atm.
It is because of all this evidence that believable models can be constructed. There is always uncertainty in prediction but if today's model makes a fair fist of predicting the last 50 years using historic data then, catastrophes apart, it should be good for the next few years at least during which time it can continue to be refined.
"Worby says that while there has been an increase in the total area of Antarctic sea ice, the total volume of ice is relatively unknown.
"It's a bit hard to say because we don't know the thickness of the ice," he says. "We can measure the extent of the ice using satellites, but we don't have any satellite technology to tell us about thickness."
"The 1% increase [also] hides the fact that there is a huge decrease in sea ice around the Antarctic Peninsula," he says. "The devil is in the detail.""
Disappointing that the article doesn't give the extent of the increase. What it does say is:
"Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase."
Which means that there is agreement on that point between Zurich and NASA. I wonder if there is similar agreement between the ice core results from Be-10 and the tree ring results from C-14.
Surely that is nothing out of the ordinary?
In which case at least one of the models will be wrong. :-)
What a stupid question, unless I am beating her while answering the question the answer will always be yes.
8<
They do not predict anything. The only thing that predicts global warming is the model you choose to use.
You sound like you think it is easy to predict the weather by looking at past events.
But it isn't very good at predicting the past, there are all sorts of fudge factors to make it fit the past with no working theory as to why the fudge factors are there or what they should be in 5 years time let alone 50.
It's not a stupid question... it's the archetypal leading question!
Q: Have you stopped beating your wife? A: Yes Implication: you used to beat your wife.
Q: Have you stopped beating your wife? A: No Implication: you are still beating your wife.
And todays lesson is... if you ask the question in the right way you can make the other guy look like a pillock, even if he doesn't try to help you do so.
I didn't really expect an answer. I just wanted to highlight the asinine nature of you previous remark.
Well that is essentially how the Met Office do it but they don't think it is easy. From what I have read it appears easier to predict future climate than it is to predict future weather.
So you say but as always when you come up with your fatuous statements you neglect to provide any evidence.
Oh yes, and how about revealing what you really meant by 'history'. Dribble routinely refuses to answer any question he fears would show himself up as a complete moron. Are you heading the same way Dennis?
Again, what diameter's that JOOI? (it had crossed my mind that black "irrigation pipe" is stupidly cheap here and would have good heat absorbtion properties, but I have no idea if it leaches something horrible that would make it unsuitable for a domestic setting)
Yes, I'm mainly interested in pre-heat, too - anything that reduces the on-time for the electric heater's a good thing. Hard to judge what capacity / configuration works best though (but it's not something I've researched in detail yet) - the main water heater's a 50 gallon dual-element unit.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.