Science Forums 2

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Cedars

First, I am extremely tired so it makes it more difficult to articulate.

Yawn...

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.

Huh? What do you mean by this?
What plants? What is the angle of reflection? Etc...

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).

I'm going to have to call BS on this. How do you define "quality light"?

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

Indeed!

Energy held by co2 is changed form. Or if its bounced once, it slows; it is slowed each time it bounces.

Well, before we go down this path, what do you mean by "energy" and "bouncing"?
The energy 'held and re-emitted' by CO2 is IR. It is re-emitted within nanoseconds of interacting with CO2. When it is re-emitted, it is still IR. Bounce it 1 billion times and it is still IR.

Speed is inconsequential. IR is electromagnetic radiation. It always travels at the speed of light (normally, in a vacuum). If the material absorbs some energy, then yes, you have a net loss of energy (IR) "bouncing" back.

IR waves do not last forever and each bounce decays its effect.

Ok, as long as the "bouncers" absorb some of the energy.

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.

This first graphing shows regional specific humidity trends from 1961-1995.
Where?
What significance does this have on the topic?

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.

Here is where we part ways.

Finally!

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.

Ok, what does your thermometer tell?

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).

This is unusable info. It's a third person account from an unidentified local condition.

So wheres your link showing me how the UHI is accounted for (see below CRI references)?

Where's my data?!
I'm not claiming any self-collected data other than what I can find through accountable sources.

There seems to be a LOT of faith in the data without real accountabilty.

You said it!

Fact is the earth has been warming (generally) since the end of the last ice age.

Indeed.

Theres plenty of studies out there indicating each warming episode has been (generally) warmer than the previous one.

Studies?

And its not the first time skeptics have notified them of problems:

GISS Releases (Suspect) October 2008 Data Watts Up With That?

OMG!
The Russian data will most likely show that we have been cooling, right? NO!
Again (and again), you can't listen to any one source. Even without the adjusted values, it looks like this attachment:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...if?w=510&h=282

If the adjustments show a downward-trend when added, let me know.

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?

I and others have addressed this so many times in this thread that I'm bored with the claim. Read through the thread. Quick summary: Temp data stations are not the ONLY source of climate data.

It would be like me telling you to not worry about the swans in MN because they are doing just fine in Ontario.

So why cant anyone tell me what the IR wave converts to when its heats up the Co2 bubble?

It doesn't 'convert'! It re-emits!

How in the world does a vibrating CO2 chunk radiate HEAT?

I gave the best link I could find to explain it in layman's terms in my last post to you. If you'd like a quantum explanation, then I'm sure we can ask a resident physicist for a better explanation (I choose not to because chances are, you nor I would understand it ).

What exactly makes it more chronic than a chip of diamond, or a cell from a tree?

Check out (actually read) the wiki on greenhouse gases.

And as I understand it, the O part dont even count in the whole OMG were boiling over stampede.

There's a good reason for that! O2 does not absorb sunlight to any significant degree.

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!!

Really? What about methane? Methane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See the real answer is cutting back the number of people!

In my *very* humble opinion, this is the only option for sustainability, period!

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.

At appropriately low levels, CO2 is great! Heck, lead is great, but I don't want it flooding the waterways.

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.

I'm not one that identifies with that crowd. I used to be an alarmist, until I learned more about the biochemistry and climatology. Now, I just try to educate.

OK, Now I am just too tired to carry on. Gawd I hate working for a living!

I've got the cure. It's called unemployment. It's great!