Its more likely he will speak to a lot of people that know how the climate is changing but its unlikely he will find any that know why.
Of course he will have more chance of finding one that is correct if he avoids climatologists.
Yes of course it's more complicated than a straight application of C-C but = it provides the basic idea. If you want to get into discussing all of the = dynamics involved, it can get complex but as far as I am aware there aren't= many people arguing that water vapour isn't a net positive feedback. What= you have described, again in fairly simple terms, is a negative feedback t= hat may play a role but you implicitly assume that it plays a sufficiently = dominant role to negate the first order effect of higher temperatures in re= lation to water vapour.
In any case, there is empirical evidence for water vapour feedback such as = the analysis of the effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption. And in general,= it is very difficult to explain the earth's climate history without having= some sort of amplification of relatively weak forcings (such as slight orb= ital changes).
40,000 km in a steady direction would simply put him somewhere in space.
Colin Bignell
Yes. Which is why, with oceans , teh reath has a remarkably stable climate over geological toime
Oh, its very easy actually.
Cloud and dust is everything.
No cloud, or humidity and its hot desert - up to 55C
Shove water vapour in and its much less diurnal range, overall cooler, and I've never seen it over 40C.
The big mistake is to regard water vapour solely as a greenhouse gas - which it is in terms of keeping night time temps up, but completely disregard the albedo effect of clouds and the massive amount of daytime convection that carries surface heat up to the stratosphere, where it can radiate heat into space.
You need to bve very selective with all the effects to make CO2 driving and amplification work at all. Its based on very very bad science indeed.
Cloud cuts the incident energy by around 4:1 or more. And makes the earth anything BUT the black body which AGW assumes.
Anything that modulates mean cloud cover will have a FAR greater effect than CO2.
And there is SOME evidence that galactic cosmic rays may, which accounts for palaentological variation. CO2 is driven by ocean temps, as hot oceans outgas, which is why CO2 always lags temeperature in the geological record.
AGW is not real science, its cherry picking little bits of physics and ignoring the rest to come up with a commercial and political statement.
I read of one idea somewhere that we actually lived on the inside of a globe. We get the impression of infinite distance by light being distorted as it travelled across the centre.
there are many possible rearrangements of the geometry that 'give the right answer' curved space rather than light refraction by gravitational fields, for example.
On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:15:38 AM UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote: =20
I am not sure that these effects are completely disregarded. As I understan= d it (as a complete layman, I freely admit), cloud feedbacks are generally = regarded as being one of the trickiest areas of climate science and the jur= y is out as to whether the feedbacks are positive or negative but my impres= sion is that there is not much evidence of *strong* positive feedback. Are= you not making the same mistake that you accuse others of in assuming that= your cherry picked bit of physics dominates everything else?
Anyway, your theory that clouds are the whole story is very reminiscent of = the Lindzen and Spencer schools of thought (if not, could you give me some = references to read up on it?). My impression is that Lindzen's ideas have r= un out of steam. Spencer is a creationist which pretty much rules him out = from any pronouncements on science IMO.
The name was a marketing exercise by Eric the Red. He didn't think the more accurate Barren-ice-covered-land would do much for the prospects of getting colonists.
Colin Bignell
Nevertheless a colony did live there for several hundred years before global cooling removed the ability to grow crops.
"To investigate the possibility of climatic cooling, scientists drilled into the Greenland ice caps to obtain core samples. The oxygen isotopes from the ice caps suggested that the Medieval Warm Period had caused a relatively milder climate in Greenland, lasting from roughly 800 to
1200. However from 1300 or so the climate began to cool. By 1420, we know that the "Little Ice Age" had reached intense levels in Greenland.[17] Excavations of midden or garbage heaps from the Viking farms in both Greenland and Iceland show the shift from the bones of cows and pigs to those of sheep and goats. As the winters lengthened, and the springs and summers shortened, there must have been less and less time for Greenlanders to grow hay. By the mid-14th century deposits from a chieftain?s farm showed a large number of cattle and caribou remains, whereas, a poorer farm only several kilometers away had no trace of domestic animal remains, only seal. Bone samples from Greenland Norse cemeteries confirm that the typical Greenlander diet had increased by this time from 20% sea animals to 80%"
True, but it was bare subsistence farming, with the occasional need to throw granny off a cliff, to make the food last through the winter. It was not the lush green land that Eric promised the Icelanders.
Colin Bignell
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.