At 10:46 AM 12/1/00 -0800, Steve wrote:
>--- John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> If we take a look at the CO2 concentrations since 800 AD, we see a
>> consistent fluctuation between a low of about 275 ppmv and a high of
>> about
>> 285 ppmv in approximately 1400 AD. After 1400 we see a decline in CO2
>
>John, what are you talking about? There were no measurements of CO2 in
>800 A.D. You must be using cooked and skewed data.
>
>Oh wait, it is proxy data. Do I detect some inconsistency here?
I never said that the data you presented was cooked or skewed; I merely
indicated that the way you used it was 'erroneous' on the basis of your
conclusion, I mean conjecture. The CO2 measurements taken from atmospheric
gases trapped in ice about 800 AD are not proxy data.
The air trapped in the ice has CO2 in it. This CO2 can be dated to the
precise year it was trapped by counting layers of ice that build up each
year, or even radio dated. There are other direct ways of measuring
atmospheric gases as well.
What is proxy about measuring the CO2 directly? With hair you can determine
the DNA even if the hair is 3000 years old.
>[snip]
>> It should therefore be intuitive that the greatest and pronounced effect
>> of
>> long lived greenhouse gases on climate would be in the polar regions.
>
>
>Uhhhmmmm, I hate to say this, but no it isn't. You haven't given a reason
>as to why the CO2 added by man would find its ways to the poles.
I don't know may be animals hold their lungs whilst in migration? Or when a
tree falls it swishes a bit of atmosphere to the north? No I guess that
would not work 'on average' unless wind direction was northerly but then if
the wind was generally northerly then some wind would have to go south.
Basic physics there. I don't know Steve how the CO2 can get into the north
or the south....how does it get out of your resin saturated lungs?
>> The
>> reason for this is rather simple. In the winter months of the polar
>> regions
>> there is very little direct solar radiation that is converted into heat.
>> The
>> days are short, the nights are long, and the snow covered surfaces
>> reflect
>> much of the incoming radiation. Areas above the Arctic circle do not
>> have
>> significant solar irradiation during winter.
>
>Okay, but this dosn't tell us why the effect should be noticable at the
>poles. What it says is that since there is so little light at the poles
>any increase would most likely be due to some other cause, such as GHGs.
Now yer a loggin!
>
>
>> The consequence is profoundly simple. If an increase in greenhouse gases
>> occurs in the troposphere as a result of fossil fuel combustion and
>> forest
>> clearing, then the full effect of would be most noticeable in the polar
>> regions during periods of low or non-existent solar irradiation. The
>
>The effect, assuming there is one, would be most noticable at the poles
>because of the absence of other confounding variables. However, you
>haven't said why we should see warming at the poles. Lets assume that
>what you are saying is true, that CO2 put in the atmosphere by man is
>collecting at the poles. What causes warming? The CO2's ability to
>absorb heat right? Where does the heat come from? The sun right? But if
>there is so little sunlight then how can we see this warming?
No. There is no sun in the winter. So the heat comes from outside the Arctic
winter. I think you have stumbled on the answer to this unsolved and
perplexing scientific riddle. It is must be mass atmospheric transfer, or
convection.
>
>Have you looked at the data on temps around Hudson Bay? There isn't that
>much warming as far as I can see.
There is if you go a bit inland. The warming is more pronounced away from
the coast line where ocean currents moderate heating as expected.
>
>http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~hudson/temphb.html
>
>http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000241-2.html
>
>In fact, there is even some cooling
>
>http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~hudson/hudtemp.JPG
>
>
>> fact
>> that the sun does not even shine above the arctic circle for up to six
>> months would should suggest to any observer that annual increases in
>> observed average daily temperatures during winter would be caused by the
>> addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, rather than short wave
>> radiation
>> from the sun. Since there are virtual no inputs of irradiation during
>
>Explain, for me, how the GHG warm up the atmosphere in the polar regions.
>I thought it was the sun's radiaion being trapped by these gases...am I
>wrong?
Yes. Fundamentally you are wrong. The reason is very simple. The short wave
radiation in order for it to be converted in to sensible heat [long waver
radiation] has to be first converted into heat. That does not happen much in
the atmosphere [exceptio is the ionosphere where it gets pretty hot]. So
when the SWR strikes a dark rock some of that energy is converted into heat.
But Short wave radiation is not felt as heat by the air. UV light has no
heat, and light in a vacuum has no 'sensible heat' otherwise the solar
radiation would attenuate before it got to earth. That is a fact, and the
other fact is that the density of the universe is practically the same as a
vacuum, somethingless than 1.0X10^-10 grams per cubic meter or less. So star
light can effectively travel completely around the universe if left to....
john foster
>
>
>Steve
>
>=====
>"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in
a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
>--Jamey Lee West
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
>http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>
|