| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Geology - Meteorology Forum » AGW IS STILL A SCAM
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:50 am |
|
|
|
|
Here is abstract from a paper
Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5723/850
Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth's surface (S) can
affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and
solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from
about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global
temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite
record. We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a
rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a
combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained
increase. The global-scale findings are consistent with recent
independent satellite observations but differ in sign and magnitude
from previously reported ground observations. Unlike ground stations,
satellites can uniformly sample the entire globe.
Enhanced greenhouse effect during industrial era: 2.4 W/m2. According
to page 66 of the 2001 compendium of the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC), about a quarter of
this amount, or 0.6 W/m2, has occurred since the mid-1980s
Now 0.16 watts per square meter multiplied by 17 years equals 2.72
watts per square meter
..
Therefore we can conclude that the that the extra heat reaching the
earth's
surface due to the reduction in aerosols is more than sufficient to
cause all the warming that occurred during the 1990s.
There is no room whatsoever for any warming by CO2, All the warming
during the 1990s could have been caused by the the reduction in
aerosols
If that is the case all the models must be wrong In fact the whole AGW
theory must be wrong so when the earth cools the environmentalists
scientists who propound it will have to eat humble pie.
Futhermore
A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect"
Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data
By Slade Barker
Abstract
"The arid environment of New Mexico is examined in an attempt to
correlate increases in atmospheric CO2 with an increase in greenhouse
effect. Changes in the greenhouse effect are estimated by using the
ratio of the recorded annual high temperatures to the recorded annual
low temperatures as a measure of heat retained (i.e. thermal inertia,
TI). It is shown that the metric TI increases if a rise in mean
temperature is due to heat retention (greenhouse) and decreases if due
to heat gain (solar flux). Essentially no correlation was found between
the assumed CO2 atmospheric concentrations and the observed greenhouse
changes, whereas there was a strong correlation between TI and
precipitation. Further it is shown that periods of increase in the mean
temperature correspond to heat gain, not heat retention. It is
concluded that either the assumed CO2 concentrations are incorrect or
that they have no measurable greenhouse effect in these data.
Conclusion
The TI metric and New Mexico data do not support the IPCC's
conclusion that increases in atmospheric CO2 play a significant roll in
global warming. It is interesting to note that a 0.6% increase in the
solar output would correspond to about 0.6°C increase in global
temperatures using the Stefan-Boltzmann law and a solar radiance of
1,390 W/m2".
Slade Barker retired as Director of the Data Processing and Validation
Department of the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office after 32 years of
service in the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Research and Development
Activity (now part of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory) and the U.S.
Naval Oceanographic Office.
If your evidence for AGW is based on models, then its worthless since
none of the models take account of the reduction in albedo during the
1990s.
Have you got any other evidence left?
It is said that the reduction in the Diurnal Temperature Range (DTR)
confirms AGW. However there are other mechanisms which cause this
reduction.
Aircraft
Dr David Travis of Wisconsin University made a study of the temperature
changes when all flights in US were stopped for 3 days after the 9/11
terrorist attack
This study "showed that removing contrails resulted in a large
increase in the daily temperature range - in other words warmer days
and cooler nights. The study does not really provide a clear-cut answer
to the question of whether the overall effect of the contrails is a net
warming or a net cooling averaged over the whole 24 hours. This
question is controversial. But what seems clear is that contrails
contribute to a reduction in the amount of daytime solar radiation
reaching the surface, and that this has significant effects on
temperature."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_qa.shtml,
Another cause is Irrigation.
Deserts have a wide diurnal temperature range, very hot days and cold
night farmland has cooler days and much warmer nights due to the
evaporation from the vegetation and albedo change.
The final cause of DTR is the
Urban Heat Island effect which certainly has influenced the
temperatures in Britain since all the stations with effectively zero
population stopped operations in the 1970s,
The temperatures in the Arctic
(where there is no population) and USA(where there are plenty of
stations with no population) are no higher today than they were in the
1930s.
(Google Images; (jones79_90n.jpg) and
(1999-gif)
The effects of CO2 should be global but the southern hemisphere is
warming at a lower rate than the northern hemisphere and the bulk of
the Antarctic is actually cooling
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2004/ShindellSchmidt1.html
Abstract
"While most of
the Earth warmed rapidly during recent decades, surface temperatures
decreased significantly over most of Antarctica. This cooling is
consistent with circulation changes associated with a shift in the
Southern Annular Mode (SAM). It has been suggested that both Antarctic
ozone depletion and increasing greenhouses gases have contributed to
these trends. We show that a climate model including the stratosphere
and both composition changes reproduces the vertical structure and
seasonality of observed trends. We find that the two factors have had
comparable surface impacts over recent decades, though ozone dominates
above the middle troposphere. Projected impacts of the two factors on
circulation over the next fifty years oppose one another, resulting in
minimal trends. In contrast, their effects on surface climate reinforce
one another, causing a departure from the SAM pattern and a turnabout
in Antarctic temperatures, which rise more rapidly than elsewhere in
the Southern Hemisphere".
There is a
serious argument with this model, the SAM is actually the westerly
winds which circle Antarctica. The authors say that an increase in
these winds have prevented heat from the sub-tropics reaching the
Antarctic. But these winds have to be driven by the temperature
difference between Antarctica and the sub-tropics. Which implies that
an increasing temperature difference is increasing the wind.
The projected impact is of
course a model and my view of models is that you can get any result you
want by modifying your parameters or by introducing new ones I know
this because my job entailed dealing with models of chemical and
physical processes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rodney Blackall |
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1162824629.506669.176610@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<tom-bolger@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Quote: Therefore we can conclude that the that the extra heat reaching the
earth's surface due to the reduction in aerosols is more than sufficient
to cause all the warming that occurred during the 1990s. There is no room
whatsoever for any warming by CO2, All the warming during the 1990s could
have been caused by the the reduction in aerosols.
In that case are you suggesting ...
(a) CO2 has not increased markedly in the last 100 years (Hawaii figures are
false) or
(b) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
Last I heard was that aerosols had NOT yet started to decrease: radiation
data from old, still working, geostationary satellites must allow for their
drift away from their original longitude.
--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:12 pm
|
|