Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
Well, it depends on what you mean by that. In correct physical terms, energy is neither destroyed or created.
|
First, I am extremely tired so it makes it more difficult to articulate.
Not exactly where I was going with this. More like you can reflect a light off a mirror to get it to your plants, but they dont grow as well. Just like you put them outside and they do better than in the window (shaded or not) because the process of going thru the glass affects the light (which is why it is recommended you either supplement light for lizards in captivity or you convert a window to plastic to allow a better quality light through for their needs).
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.
Energy held by co2 is changed form. Or if its bounced once, it slows; it is slowed each time it bounces.
IR waves do not last forever and each bounce decays its effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
Do you have a link to this? It sounds hokey to me. It's not hokey that man made water sources influence the local weather and ecology, but quantifying that on a local level can approach impossibility (with any credibility).
|
Volume 12, Issue 3 (March 1999)
Journal of Climate
AMS Online Journals Display Figures
The trend line is there but hard to see in black and white.
Urban Irrigation Has Increased Phoenix Area's Rainfall | LiveScience
The original author which the above is based on states more study needs to be done to calculate the irrigation effect more accurately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
It's a good question!
Since we started looking at climate on a world wide level (about 100 years of research) we have gained enormous amounts of knowledge. We now know that other factors are at play including other GHG (methane and H2O) and solar variability etc. All current models take these sources into account. Are we missing something? Probably. But whatever it is that we may be missing at this time does not appear to be reflected in the climate models.
|
Here is where we part ways.
All Current models Claim to take these sources into account. What remains to be proven is whether they have correctly assessed these other factors. I do not believe they have. I think (based on real world experience) they under account the UHI. I can tell when the wind is blowing directly over the twin cities to my house when there is a warm front north of me. I can feel the heat difference a few degrees change in the wind brings.
To describe this effect a little closer. The road on the south side of my property was tarred two summers ago. My former renter worked outside and was very happy to lose the dust (after 3 full summers of dealing with it). Last summer, his first full summer of tar he commented to me about how much hotter it was. How he could feel the heat blowing off the road. He was approx 60 feet from the road and this heat was passing a tree lined fence (8 foot tall fence).
So wheres your link showing me how the UHI is accounted for (see below CRI references)?
There seems to be a LOT of faith in the data without real accountabilty. Fact is the earth has been warming (generally) since the end of the last ice age. Theres plenty of studies out there indicating each warming episode has been (generally) warmer than the previous one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
No, I haven't heard about this. Please link me.  |
And its not the first time skeptics have notified them of problems:
GISS Releases (Suspect) October 2008 Data Watts Up With That?
I posted this in post #1184 regarding surfacestations.org :
... as to the quality of data and questionable conditions surrounding these stations who we rely on to provide accurate temperature data. Besides the fact that large numbers of stations have been removed from the grid, I was shocked to see the majority of MN weather stations who provide data on surface temps rated a 4 or lower on the CRN Site Quality Rating.
2 = CRN 5 (error >= 5C)
14 = CRN 4 (error >= 2C)
4 = CRN 3 (error 1C)
4 = CRN 2
0 = CRN 1
2 had been closed in the 90s
4 not surveyed
1 needed re-survey so not included in rating list.
And thats just the MN stations.
526 have been surveyed (43.7%)
687 need to be surveyed
Only 13% come in with a CRN 1 or 2 rating.
19% have a CRN 3 rating
57% have a CRN 4 rating
12% have a CRN 5 rating
So 32% of the ratings fall between good and marginal.
69% have suspect data (in my opinion).
How can you be so sure the warming has been accurately documented? Even if surfacestations exaggerates the problem, half the temp variable and its still alot of stations with questionable data. How exactly are these variables handled? Why are these stations not being improved so data fixing doesnt need to be applied? Why not get quality data at the source?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
Well, I hate it when people say that something is so insignificant because of quantity, without assessing the quality.
|
So why cant anyone tell me what the IR wave converts to when its heats up the Co2 bubble? How in the world does a vibrating CO2 chunk radiate HEAT?
What exactly makes it more chronic than a chip of diamond, or a cell from a tree? And as I understand it, the O part dont even count in the whole OMG were boiling over stampede.
CO2
I see nothing in its chemistry that makes it more heat trapping than any other carbon based particle. Less than I am; being as my external temp has less variability than the average low temp of Minnesota in July. Not only that but I am heat emitting!!
See the real answer is cutting back the number of people!
This aint CFCs. This aint dioxin. This aint R2d4. Its at best a microscopic piece of soot thats been fused to oxygen via the combustion chamber of my GEO.
Quote:
|
That's not a valid analogy imho. The water is heating up regardless, but the added albedo of the coke can increase this.
|
Prove it.
I am not saying it does. I am saying this is the analogy of the OMG were all dying crowd. So lets ban coke! BTW, what will the carbon tax be on Pepsi? That concerns me greatly.
OK, Now I am just too tired to carry on. Gawd I hate working for a living!
