Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
Recent Comments
- Russell Cook on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- arn on “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- arn on Harris To Win Iowa
- William on Harris To Win Iowa
- William on Harris To Win Iowa
- arn on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Billyjack on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Disillusioned on Harris To Win Iowa
- czechlist on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- oeman50 on Spoiled Children
So he is speculating conditions at approx. 800 to 900ppm CO2.
We are safe for a while, whew!
I don’t think that’s clear from the text, because measurements of atmospheric CO2 were not as uniform as they are presented today. I don’t know what specific ppm he had in mind, and how today’s levels would approximate to what he had in mind when he made that prediction.
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog.
Meatballs, Ikea and CO2 driven global warming, how can we ever thank Sweden enough?
Great example of “It doesn’t matter how beautiful the guess is, or how smart the guesser is, or how famous the guesser is; if the experiment disagrees with the guess, then the guess is wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
Arrhenius was wrong. That’s all there is to it!
—physicist Richard Feynman
He may have been wrong, but he was Optimistic about what warming would mean for the human race. We need to keep that in mind. It wasn’t his idea to panic the populace.
The “bananas” and “fringe” bits seemed appropriate.
I especially like page 8, the Pueblo Correct Fuel Weight Association and the 12 member companies of that association who sell coal to the Colorado public.
It was, and still is only a hypothesis, i.e; gases that absorb and re-radiate a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum back towards the surface will affect the average temperature of the Earth (covered mostly with Oceans possessing massive thermal capacities).
Now 100 years later I think it is safe to say that the original hypothesis was flawed.
An alternative hypothesis is that the “green house effect” (i.e. the absorption and re-radiation of a small portion of the spectrum) merely delays the flow of energy through the system. Given the velocities involved (speed of light) and the distances (a few miles to TOA) this delay is a few tens of milliseconds (at best). This delay changes the response time of the gases slightly and given the disparate thermal capacities of the gases in the atmosphere versus the massive thermal capacities of the Ocean’s there is no effect on the average temperature of the Earth.
Note that this alternative hypothesis matches the observations; increasing CO2 does not cause temperature increases; increasing CO2 could change the response time of the gases (not measured by anyone in the climate science community); and increasing temperatures (from other causes) increases the CO2.
There are practical examples of this “optical delay line” effect demonstrated in the literature and everyday products; optical delay lines (not the same thing as a resonant cavity inherent inside a laser), the temporal response of an integrating sphere and the science behind a multilayer optical interference coating. A multilayer optical interference coating does in fact cause “more energy to stay here” (i.e.inside a lens versus reflected away), but it requires the presence of constructive and destructive optical interference to function.
Arrhenius was indeed very sharp, but the observations rule.
Cheers, Kevin.
The composition of planetary atmospheres has only a minor effect on temperature within tropospheres. There are seven bodies with tropospheres in our solar system. In tropospheres the temperature gradient (Adiabatic Lapse Rate) is equal to -g/Cp as predicted by thermodynamics except when vapors are present.
Earth has oceans of water and Titan has oceans of methane supporting vapors that reduce the Adiabatic Lapse Rate significantly.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/abs/ngeo2020.html
Planetary tropospheres become increasingly opaque to thermal IR radiation so outgoing radiation is absorbed before it can be exit into space. When the pressure is high thermal IR radiation is only able to transfer energy over short distances. This has been modeled with impressive accuracy by Robinson & Catling:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
If you are wondering why global temperatures correlate closely with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere look to Henry’s law rather than the Arrhenius (1896) hypothesis:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/
While Arrhenius was wrong about the effect of trace gases he realized that higher global temperatures would be highly beneficial to mankind as the post above shows. Thus he was much smarter than our modern “Climate Scientists” who contend that higher temperatures have only negative consequences.
Are the minuscule changes in our atmosphere more powerful than the small variations in the sun’s output?
Roughly 50 million years ago Earth was experiencing the PETM (Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum). There was no polar ice and Antarctica had a temperate climate with grass and trees. The seas at high latitudes were 20 K warmer than today.
So was the PETM a disaster for animal life? Apparently not as that was the time when mammals became dominant so that (much later) “Homo Sapiens” could evolve.
Unfortunately in the real world C02 has no effect on global temepratures. I wish it did as arrhenius wished LOL
Maine was considered warm?
Lack of a personal responsibility is a very ground for a science of privileged.
Lack of a personal responsibility is a very ground for a science of privileged.
Michael Kerjman
The dawn of the rort.