------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[cbacba]

Twig6,

Actually, there's no attempt to compare prices of beta vs vhs, only vcrs early, mid and late. VHS won because they realized several things about why the customer wanted them. Uses were movies, soaps and tv shows and sports. Longer tape length with dreadful quality trumped better quality tape with short time length. Advanced timer ability with multiple recording times beat a single timer and finally rental movie availability won out for vhs.

There's always some fraction of the market composed of those to whom pricing is irrelevent - they can afford it if they want it. There is also the segment of early emplimenters who have to have the latest - whatever the heck it is - gizmo. The rising peak of demand is then composed of those who need something they don't have. Finally there's the change-over as transition from whatever to whatever replaces it followed by the saturated market where replacement dominates.

Typically, tax credits help reduce overall expense but seldom if ever cover the expenses or bring one to break even. There are of course significantly out of the mainstream applications where some new technology such as solar may be cheaper than say the costs of bringing in grid power to a remote location.

Note your example as a factor of 10x error. A $100 / mo, 0.12 / kw means about 800 kwh not 8000 (or 10,000kwh / mo) that's the yearly usage.

Leaving out general inflation keeps things a bit simpler and leaves things comprehensible and perhaps requires a simple correction to adapt to a newer and lower value of money. Cost increases of energy not part of inflation is yet another unknown that may or may not actually happen. Depending upon inflation to provide return on investment generally means there isn't much of any real return. 5% compound interest for 20yrs should be worth about 2.5 times the initial investment.

Your $25k investment may or may not be similar to the same sized power gen system as I guesstimated. I think I guesstimated a system putting in about 8 or 9 kwh per year including prospects of cloudy days. I was guessing costs typical of 50-65 W panels with a rough rough guess of installation and switchover circuitry. Whether serious savings may be had from buying systems vs. individual retail for panels is simply a question left for more serious study.

I can't agree with you on the private sector being subsidized. The relationship between the private sector and the gov. is more like a an emaciated goat trying to remain standing while being crushed by a giant leach sucking its blood.

There are some companies that couldn't continue to exist without special favors from the gov. usually permitting them to compete against other companies which don't receive such favors. An example might be a company that hires illegals at low wages secure in the knowledge that no fine or punishment will happen to them and giving them a competitive advantage over those companies that do not hire illegals as they would be fined severely when caught.

As for people from the private sector, they are usually much more competent than one finds in the public sector for leadership. Typically, an elected official is competent only in or mostly in the realm of getting elected - that is the only job requirement. Since one needs to earn a living before and after being in public service, working in the private sector tends to be a necessity.

I've seen little difference in this administration versus any other.

Much of the problems I've seen have been failures of business to deal effectively with unions, allowing themselves to be walked all over and promising significantly beyond what can be delivered. There's been several notable failures/exposures of wrong doing and a few examples of stockholders asserting their control over executives run amock.

The only cure for that is to prevent the political hacks from having sufficient power and control over wealth. Most jobs now are small business related not large business. Of course the small businesses don't have political clout of big ones.

Biggest problem in oil is foreign demand - like china. It doesn't help to have gov. restricting domestic drilling in a big way either.

If you're referring to driving a french fry mobile usuing deep fry oil, that's cheap but not available in qty. I understnd the new zealanders have some prototype commercial sewage to biodiesel test going on. So far, BioWillie's truck stop (willie nelson is the spokesman?) hasn't made it within 100 miles of here and the last one I saw was noticeably more expensive than petroleum diesel prices in the vacinity.

I'm not sure if bio-willie is more unsustainable subsidized food burning like corn ethanol or if it's something real with a big future.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by cbacba

At roughly the cost of solar panels and reroofing considerations, one finds that modern day panels would cost almost $100,000 US.

Hi Cbacba,

You could actually purchase a unit to run the average home for just under $30,000 (reroofing is not usually necessary) and Uncle Sam and most states provide about $10,000 is credits to offset the costs. So, for $20,000 most people would be up and running and probably adding power to the grid -- depending on their sunny days that is. For someone like me that has a bill closer to twice your estimate the savings are profound. Add to that the increased value it adds to your home, the added security of being that much more self-sufficient and the feel-good tree-hugger aspect and it makes sense.

As you stated, it comes down to economics. It is a clip initially but you can finance it and write off the interest...according to my figures, for most people, it would be a win-win situation...unless it gets unusually cloudy - - which is a possibility.

~Paradox

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Twig6

What good comes from escalation of panic? Don't people become more reactionary—wanting to build fences and such—not less?

I for one believe we must react --- whether out of fear, panic or duty. Gore may not have his facts straight and is obviously pushing a political agenda BUT his message should not be completely discounted. The fact is that we are probably on the verge of an irreversible spiral into climate chaos brought on by both natural and anthropogenic forcings. Observation substatiates this claim. At what point do we decide that the prospects of dodging this bullet are non-existant and 'react' accordingly? We may need a lot more fences.

I still maintain that the unalterable choice of a future dystopia is false and damaging to us. Yes, we are only human—what control do we have over nature? Absolutely none. We only have control over how we react to nature and whether we decide to keep running our societies as though we do control it, wasting resources and incurring waste. We have a choice to further ignore the climate, increase our resource debt and increase our waste surplus, or start paying it off/mitigating it now—either way it will eventually have to be paid or dealt with. By us.

Tell that to China... I am sure they will be all ears. It is hard to disagree with your statement but in the real world force will be needed. Mother nature is the only force capable, the UN has little power over the economic forces at work.

I believe climate change will be something that brings about the changes that we, as a race, have failed to realize on our own. In typical 'wait-until-the-last-minute' form we will certainly roll out new technology, high-mileage vehicles and hopefully hydrogen as a replacement for oil and gas. This will take time -- which we may not have.

The reality is that oil, coal, natural gas, uranium, and raw metal resources will all peak sometime this century (most closer to now than the end of the century). Water and soil resources will be severely depleted. Animal and plant species are dying out a rate that indicates half of them will be extinct at the end of this century. This is all without even factoring in climate change.* My (future) children and grandchildren will likely be alive when this happens. So will everyone else's.

Water is the only resource that is currently threatening global security. We have too many third world countries that cannot cope with the current trends...this will spill over into every country and validate many of the concerns regarding overpopulation. We are walking a fine line at the moment.

Going on the way we have been frankly isn't an option, no matter how many wars we fight or fences we build or how we prepare ourselves. The money we need for infrastructure is being blown on hoarding those depleted resources for a few people. It's a stupid gamble—a gamble dependent on us continuing to depend solely on those depleted resources. So, I think the rest of us just need to get on with our lives—now versus later. The people who will survive in the future are those that can adapt to the situations they find themselves in the fastest, and quit clinging to old ways that just don't work anymore.

Same as it ever was.

Well said.


~Paradox

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Paradox

Hi Cbacba,

You could actually purchase a unit to run the average home for just under $30,000 (reroofing is not usually necessary) and Uncle Sam and most states provide about $10,000 is credits to offset the costs. So, for $20,000 most people would be up and running and probably adding power to the grid -- depending on their sunny days that is. For someone like me that has a bill closer to twice your estimate the savings are profound. Add to that the increased value it adds to your home, the added security of being that much more self-sufficient and the feel-good tree-hugger aspect and it makes sense.

As you stated, it comes down to economics. It is a clip initially but you can finance it and write off the interest...according to my figures, for most people, it would be a win-win situation...unless it gets unusually cloudy - - which is a possibility.

~Paradox

Actually, reroofing is nominally around a 15 yr cycle (for those buying 20-30yr roofs). Mounting panels on the roof makes for a much more expensive roofing job. You haven't mentioned the size in watts for the panel system or how much power you expect to legitimately from them based on a year's usage. The number I used was just a typical value of what one can find for a single panel - then sized up for a complete system. That was a 50 W panel for about $300 as I recall which is in the ballpark of what I've seen somewhere. Between cloudy and rainy days and the direction of the sun throughout the day and altitude position during the year( as in altitude/azimuth position) one cannot expect full power for 8 hours a day every day.

[Simple]

Perhaps if the desert didn't cool down at night anymore than the florida swamp, you might have a case.

This is unrelated as i suspect you know!

The desert is cooled so dramatically due to loss of radiant heat to the sky.
Your right any warming process will increase CO2 in the atmosphere, including putting CO2 into the atmosphere, which is a warming influence on the atmosphere, also as you know as air warms in can evapourate more water vapour, this causes a drop in relative humidity when the amount of water vapur is limited (in a box), however in system like the globe the RH remains relative stable overall, however the actual water in the air is greater, this mechanism is true of any warming as you say and amplifies any warming, and the reverse is true cool, less water vapour, cooling and drying of the atmosphere, the world became significantly drier after Pinotubo. None of this however removes from the fact that man has put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to raise it by 100ppm, taking into account all the sinks etc, this can not be dismissed, this amount of CO2 has been released and is still being released.

Also as you know in every log curve an initial increase in X causes a far greater relative increase in Y than the same increase in X once the curve has developed and therefore the initial doubling of X (CO2) has a far greater effect than the next doubling and we are still in the first doubling.

Considering all the natural variations in the climate have been arround since time when and the fluctations in global (not regional) have never occurred so fast as now when there isn't a coalessence of natural forcings present how do account for this event being so so so rapid or are you the type to cast doubt on temperature records etc. There is no natural forcing at present to account for this unique warming event and all the natural forcings present today have always been present, why is this time so unique, for me it is because man as caused a baseline parameter of a chaotic system to increase dramatically and increase its effect by 60% in the last 40 years or so, CO2 forcing was only 1W/m2 in 1950's now its ~1.6w/m2, that is a big increase when you consider an increase or decrease in the suns forcing of 0.2w/m2 can cause to flip from ice age to no ice through the chaos feedbacks.

To throw a daft example like your deserts at you,

When it is a cloudy night here where i live it is hotter at night in the winter and colder when there are no clouds, hurray clouds are warming the earth!!!!!!!!! proven maybe not.

Although it is known the higher clouds are warming and lower clouds are cooling and the trends at present due to warming we are seeing is causing clouds to lift and become warming influences, although overall at present the influence of cloud is basically neutral when all types of clouds are taken into account.

Again as said already this is going over the same old ground as has been covered several times in this thread already.

We should really start talkng about adaptation, mitigation aint going to happen, man will burn all the fossil fuels available to him however convincing the evidence is or not if you receive a salary from an oil comapny, china isn't going to stop, nor indina nor malaysia, Brasil will keep cutting dwnn the rainforest, etc,et,, man is greedy and self centered so what we need to be doing is accepting man is capable of doing this and finding a way to adapt once the shit hits the fan, the average yearly rise in temp for the last fifteen years is 0.03C, this is an acceleration, ice is melting very quickly, seasons are changing, species are migrating, levles of fauna and flora are falling dramatically, excuse man if like if you can't take the guilt that is up to you and cbacba is right that increasing temp increases CO2 through natural feedbacks, we have no chance of stopping this event, and it has recently been reported that the effect of CO2 on atmospheric warming always(throughout history) has been underestimated..........................CO2 is the cause get over it and lets do something sensible about it.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Simple

This is unrelated as i suspect you know!

The desert is cooled so dramatically due to loss of radiant heat to the sky.
Your right any warming process will increase CO2 in the atmosphere, including putting CO2 into the atmosphere, which is a warming influence on the atmosphere, also as you know as air warms in can evapourate more water vapour, this causes a drop in relative humidity when the amount of water vapur is limited (in a box), however in system like the globe the RH remains relative stable overall, however the actual water in the air is greater, this mechanism is true of any warming as you say and amplifies any warming, and the reverse is true cool, less water vapour, cooling and drying of the atmosphere, the world became significantly drier after Pinotubo. None of this however removes from the fact that man has put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to raise it by 100ppm, taking into account all the sinks etc, this can not be dismissed, this amount of CO2 has been released and is still being released.

Also as you know in every log curve an initial increase in X causes a far greater relative increase in Y than the same increase in X once the curve has developed and therefore the initial doubling of X (CO2) has a far greater effect than the next doubling and we are still in the first doubling.

Considering all the natural variations in the climate have been arround since time when and the fluctations in global (not regional) have never occurred so fast as now when there isn't a coalessence of natural forcings present how do account for this event being so so so rapid or are you the type to cast doubt on temperature records etc. There is no natural forcing at present to account for this unique warming event and all the natural forcings present today have always been present, why is this time so unique, for me it is because man as caused a baseline parameter of a chaotic system to increase dramatically and increase its effect by 60% in the last 40 years or so, CO2 forcing was only 1W/m2 in 1950's now its ~1.6w/m2, that is a big increase when you consider an increase or decrease in the suns forcing of 0.2w/m2 can cause to flip from ice age to no ice through the chaos feedbacks.

To throw a daft example like your deserts at you,

When it is a cloudy night here where i live it is hotter at night in the winter and colder when there are no clouds, hurray clouds are warming the earth!!!!!!!!! proven maybe not.

Although it is known the higher clouds are warming and lower clouds are cooling and the trends at present due to warming we are seeing is causing clouds to lift and become warming influences, although overall at present the influence of cloud is basically neutral when all types of clouds are taken into account.

Again as said already this is going over the same old ground as has been covered several times in this thread already.

We should really start talkng about adaptation, mitigation aint going to happen, man will burn all the fossil fuels available to him however convincing the evidence is or not if you receive a salary from an oil comapny, china isn't going to stop, nor indina nor malaysia, Brasil will keep cutting dwnn the rainforest, etc,et,, man is greedy and self centered so what we need to be doing is accepting man is capable of doing this and finding a way to adapt once the shit hits the fan, the average yearly rise in temp for the last fifteen years is 0.03C, this is an acceleration, ice is melting very quickly, seasons are changing, species are migrating, levles of fauna and flora are falling dramatically, excuse man if like if you can't take the guilt that is up to you and cbacba is right that increasing temp increases CO2 through natural feedbacks, we have no chance of stopping this event, and it has recently been reported that the effect of CO2 on atmospheric warming always(throughout history) has been underestimated..........................CO2 is the cause get over it and lets do something sensible about it.

The desert example is precisely the point. Radiant energy escaping or in the case of the effect of greenhouse gases, not escaping is the mechanism of how ghgs work at all.

Co2 blocks by absorbing certain small wavelength bands in the infrared which are in the region of the peak of the extremely broad band of wavelengths emitted by all bodies in the universe that are above absolute 0 (0 K). This bit of energy blocked goes into heating the co2 as it is absorbed into the bonds holding the molecule together and of course if the co2 gets heated, then it's going to heat up the rest of the molecules around to the same temperature. It also happens that h2o vapor absorbs at the same bands just like co2 - only much better.

Blocking of IR by h2o is not a function of relative humidity. It is a function of absolute humidity which is the mass of h2o in a given volume. Relative humidity is a percent of the partial pressure attributable to h2o divided by the vapor pressure. 90% relative humidity at 0 deg C is somewhat less than 90% relative humidity at 20 deg C.

Your use of the term amplify as applied to h2o is a total misnomer. h2o vapor causes warming just like co2 causes warming. There is no difference in effect, only in degree and h2o is more potent. What's more, h2o vapor will function without any co2 or any other ghg.

I've not done the calculation on co2 contribution by man but if it's anything like what I've seen in the rest of the arguments, I suspect it is very possibly over blown too. However, that or any other number for anthropogenic co2 is irrelevent to GW if there is no GW caused by co2.

As for your presumption that natural variations in climate never fluctuating as fast as they are now - that flies in the face of the evidence which does exists. Climate has rapid changes. The biggest problem is probably the ability to discern very accurately rather small time resolution.

Your numbers of 1w/m2 versus 1.6w/m2 is based upon numbers that are very suspect. The sun has been very stable in that time frame so far as radiant energy goes. It's also increase by 40% or so in magnetic field flux - which is an indirect effect likely to have far more consequences than a mere doubling of co2 levels in the atmosphere.

Just as clouds provide blocking at all wavelengths of interest during the day, so too they do at night. They also tend to reflect energy rather than absorb all of it that they affect. Think of it this way. If a cloud blocks 1kwh of radiant incoming energy from a small area during the day time and stays around at night, it's going to block some of the radiant energy escaping from that same area - but it's no where close to the 1kwh that was incoming. Note that a watt is energy per time so a kilowatt hour is a total amount of energy. The amount of radiant energy emitted from that small area is no where close to 1kwh - unless it's glowing white hot. Net result, the total energy now in the form of heat on earth is the Total incoming-1kwh - fraction not radiated. Note that the total wasn't much more than the 1kwh because the cloud blocked most of it. That radiated back is only a fraction of the 1kwh as well. Net result is the heat trapped is somewhat less than the heat blocked so the NET result is a decrease in heat (or total energy).

There's been simplistic attempts to claim clouds cancel out. It's total BS. One can tell very easily by trying to run a solar panel or a solar oven on a cloudy day. One can tell from the desert night that if the sun ceased shining, the earth's surface would be frozen over totally in a week. If the solar energy doesn't reach the earth, it's not going to maintain its temperature or anywhere close to liquid h2o levels. Clouds block that inflow to a significant extent. As long as earth is above absolute 0 it will continue to radiate heat- if not replaced, the temperature decreases - no matter how good some real life insulating layer might function.

It might be neutral if the earth were 5500K. I'd like to see how a cloud that blocks 75% of incoming radiation is not going to block 75% of incoming radiation at a higher altitude or a lower altittude.


As for some sort of steep slope on the log curve. That's for when co2 levels are so low as to permit the vast majority of the blocked radiation bands to make it through the atmosphere without being blocked. Then increasing the concentration will cut down on the amount blocked. We're at the concentration point where co2's major effects occur within 100 ft. We're so far into the flat part of the logrithmic curve that it isn't funny.

Not to mention they've ignored effects of methane which has risen more than co2 in the last few hundred years yet it is 7 times more potent on the long term and it's low concentration would suggest that it's not in the flat area of it's curve. As such, it should be evident that co2 is a scapegoat and its choice is politically motived as an assault on technology. It's obvious places like india and china aren't concerned about it or subject to any constraints as they increase their uses exponentially for the time being. It's a con job to extract wealth from the west.

[Twig6]

Originally Posted by cbacba

Note your example as a factor of 10x error. A $100 / mo, 0.12 / kw means about 800 kwh not 8000 (or 10,000kwh / mo) that's the yearly usage.

Typo. I wrote /month when I meant /year. The calculated numbers are still correct.

Originally Posted by cbacba

Cost increases of energy not part of inflation is yet another unknown that may or may not actually happen. Depending upon inflation to provide return on investment generally means there isn't much of any real return.

Inflation and energy price increases are just a bonus in the example I gave. They aren't guaranteed, but they are very likely as the Fed Reserve prints money like it's not a guarantee of inflation, and the aforementioned peaks in all current energy reserves.

The link I posted gave several calculated scenarios for borrowing the money for the system, and retaining a return on investment over and above the interest payment. My example didn't take into account as many factors, and was assuming that the system would be paid for without borrowed funds. In other words, a rough calculation. Their calculations are more detailed and factor things in like increased value of the home, etc.

Originally Posted by cbacba

I can't agree with you on the private sector being subsidized. The relationship between the private sector and the gov. is more like a an emaciated goat trying to remain standing while being crushed by a giant leach sucking its blood.

Th real picture is exactly opposite the one you paint—government funds (or rather public funds) are the goat, and big business is the leech.

Big business contributes—at most—about 20% of U.S. jobs (while small biz employ 50%), contribute to a smaller percentage of GDP than either small biz or consumers. Despite all this, they receive a huge percentage of public funds, public bailouts, tax breaks, etc. In other words, they represent a drain on the economy.

Fossil fuels represent only a tiny percentage of GDP, and yet the gov't spends billions of dollars securing them for the sole benefit of big business, the whole enterprise being a net loss for the general economy. (Not to mention all the other staggering non-monetary costs).

Originally Posted by cbacba

Much of the problems I've seen have been failures of business to deal effectively with unions, allowing themselves to be walked all over and promising significantly beyond what can be delivered.

This is completely without factual merit. Unions hold almost no power anymore in the United States, although they continue to be inexplicably blamed for things that realistically have nothing to do with them (much like illegal immigrants, minorities, and other "scapegoats" who have achieved popularity from time to time.)

Originally Posted by cbacba

The only cure for that is to prevent the political hacks from having sufficient power and control over wealth. Most jobs now are small business related not large business. Of course the small businesses don't have political clout of big ones.

I would actually agree with this part.

Originally Posted by cbacba

Biggest problem in oil is foreign demand - like china. It doesn't help to have gov. restricting domestic drilling in a big way either.

I don't really understand how foreign oil demand is a "problem", unless you think that no one else should be allowed to have oil except us?

If you're talking about the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve, you're talking about an estimated mean of 7.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The current annual U.S. demand is 6.6 billion barrels a year. U.S. oil reserves went into decline 30 years ago, and what is left is literally talking about grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by cbacba

If you're referring to driving a french fry mobile usuing deep fry oil, that's cheap but not available in qty. I understnd the new zealanders have some prototype commercial sewage to biodiesel test going on. So far, BioWillie's truck stop (willie nelson is the spokesman?) hasn't made it within 100 miles of here and the last one I saw was noticeably more expensive than petroleum diesel prices in the vacinity.

I'm not sure if bio-willie is more unsustainable subsidized food burning like corn ethanol or if it's something real with a big future.

There are myriad ways of growing and producing biodiesel, several of them independent of food crops. They are allcheaper to produce, if all costs are considered, than oil production.

I applaud people who you denigrate as driving french fry mobiles—they're much smarter economically and environmentally than those that drive petroleum-powered vehicles, and they've taken the means of production back from oil monopolies.

The most unsustainable—and largest—federal subsidies go not towards ethanol, but rather oil monopolies—literally throwing money and lives away on a dwindling, polluting resource.

Oil is only valuable as long as there are consumers willing to buy it. A technologies in other alternative fuels improve and become cheaper, consumers will likely turn towards them instead. Too bad for the oil companies and their investors.

[Twig6]

Originally Posted by Paradox

I for one believe we must react --- whether out of fear, panic or duty.

But what if we just reacted because it was the smartest thing for us to do personally? I believe that only by personally increasing demand and investment int a different culture do we ever find it. I think the more environmentally-friendly, progressive, democratic areas of the world will do the best in the future. This includes people in what we think of as third-world countries. They are investing in alternative energy, water collection, desalination, irrigation, alternative agriculture systems as we speak. These are people that are preparing for climate change. The truth is that the "West" is falling behind—the E.U is doing much better than the U.S., but neither are doing what they need to be. But there are local pockets everywhere that are doing what they need to be.

Originally Posted by Paradox

We may need a lot more fences.

I don't think so. Dealing with refugees by building fences is a bad idea on many, many levels.

I think we need to do what we can to support and sustain global environments, and share technologies that show that crappy environments can be improved—permaculture growing crops in the desert, water collection and reuse, alternative energy, etc.

Today, we have the technology and knowledge available to us so people can make the most out of where they are and not be forced to migrate. It's just an issue of applying it.

Originally Posted by Paradox

I believe climate change will be something that brings about the changes that we, as a race, have failed to realize on our own.

I completely agree with this statement. Things will probably be worse for awhile, but I really think that they will be better at some point in the future.

Originally Posted by Paradox

In typical 'wait-until-the-last-minute' form we will certainly roll out new technology...This will take time -- which we may not have.

The funny thing is that there is all this technology that's already been invented out there, just waiting for investment.

For instance, this invention called the Delbuoy is this cheap, wave-powered, low-tech desalination system that would be perfect for ocean-dwelling locations, the inventor, to my knowledge, has not found the investment to market this as a commercial product. If demand increases because of water shortages, this technology is just waiting.

And I'm sure there are other technologies just like it—but they will rarely advertised to us on TV. Inexpensive, local production is not what corporations want us to buy into.

Knowledge technologies like permaculture, water collection & reuse systems, etc., etc. are already invented as well, they just lack being broadly applied. That won't change until we apply them.

[Simple]

Climate has rapid changes.

Yes it does that fastest GLOBAL change is 2C in 1000 years, Greenland however has changed by several degrees in a centurary but this wasn't a global event, find a global change as rapid as 2C in a hundred years, i haven't been able to, it must be global, the Arctic is presently heading for 4-5C in 100 years and the Greenland events are due to changes in the THC which causes very rapid unique changes in this region since Panama.

The desert example is precisely the point.

Your original point was that deserts are colder than Mississippi swamps at night therefore water vapour isn't amplifying the effect of CO2 infra red warming. This is a typical misrepresentation put forward to confuse the issue. The desert region has little water in its system where as the swamp has loads, this water absorbs heat all day due to the massive Specific capacity of the water, this heat is stored in the water and then released at night, not much water not much heat stored cold nights lots of water lots of heat stored warmer nights. This however has little to do with the overall system and is a red herring that CO2 isn't causing warming as an example it is like saying if you leave the door of the fridge open the inside is warmer because the engine isn't working.

The average temperature at night in the desert over time will be higher when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere due to its ability to absord heat and warm the atmosphere as you clearly know as water as you say does the same thing only better, thankfully or the world would be an ice ball. The amount of water in the atmosphere is huge, and therefore changes in the overall water content of the atmosphere are small. CO2 however absorbs the heat and warms the atmosphere arround it, this warming allows that atmosphere to evaporate more water vapour in a non linear way, and therefore more actual water vapour is held in the atmosphere and there is a greater overall warming effect, this is well recognised and studied and it enhances the effect of CO2 warming by a factor of 2 or so. The warmer the atmosphere gets the more water vapour it holds the hotter it gets this relationship is none linear, which is often the case in a complex system and precisely why the very small changes in the sun's intensity over 1000 years can have such dramtic effects.

Your numbers of 1w/m2 versus 1.6w/m2 is based upon numbers that are very suspect.

IPCC 2007, Pielke web blog, Hansen science sept 2006, you should read that paper explains how the tropics arround East India and Western pacific not the poles are a lot more accurate measures of global temperature changes as they are not subject to THC variations and when you look at temperature changes there 0.2C a decade is uniquely rapid and most skeptics even feel that this event is more rapid than previous, Paradox here feels it is due to the natural forcings alignments including ones we don't know yet like magnetic fields whose influences as you know are pure speculation and even if they aren't they always been present yet this event is unique.

As for some sort of steep slope on the log curve. That's for when co2 levels are so low as to permit the vast majority of the blocked radiation bands to make it through the atmosphere without being blocked. Then increasing the concentration will cut down on the amount blocked. We're at the concentration point where co2's major effects occur within 100 ft. We're so far into the flat part of the logrithmic curve that it isn't funny.

CO2 levels were lowest ever in the Co2 record of the world between 200-290 for the last 650,000years at least, therefore we have increased very low levels, to still very low levels, but enough to increase the forcing by 0.6w/m2 in less than 50 years, and climatologists can do maths.

As for the clouds the link to cosmic rays is tenuous and real climate and climatologists in UK feel it is very over exaggerated.

It's total BS. One can tell very easily by trying to run a solar panel or a solar oven on a cloudy day.

I've only ever read 30-40% reflectance and cirrus clouds less than that they let short radiation through and the water in the clouds is also heated causing a heating effect and when worked by LIn et al in 2001 the clouds where a positive forcing.

Grasping at cosmic rays is rather odd to me, when GHG as clear, where they come from, how much, what effect they have all very thoroughly investigated.

As for global warming pushing money to the east thats ecomonics mate not global warming, China can produce things cheaper than the west and USA isn't exactly putting much legisation to stop GHG emissions in THe USA has a massive trade deficit with China the rise of the East is nigh your right.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Simple

Yes it does that fastest GLOBAL change is 2C in 1000 years, Greenland however has changed by several degrees in a centurary but this wasn't a global event, find a global change as rapid as 2C in a hundred years, i haven't been able to, it must be global, the Arctic is presently heading for 4-5C in 100 years and the Greenland events are due to changes in the THC which causes very rapid unique changes in this region since Panama.

Estimates of the last super volcano were 5 deg C. What makes you think the arctic is going to increase by anywhere close to that much either?

Your original point was that deserts are colder than Mississippi swamps at night therefore water vapour isn't amplifying the effect of CO2 infra red warming. This is a typical misrepresentation put forward to confuse the issue. The desert region has little water in its system where as the swamp has loads, this water absorbs heat all day due to the massive Specific capacity of the water, this heat is stored in the water and then released at night, not much water not much heat stored cold nights lots of water lots of heat stored warmer nights. This however has little to do with the overall system and is a red herring that CO2 isn't causing warming as an example it is like saying if you leave the door of the fridge open the inside is warmer because the engine isn't working.

That's the problem with using the term amplify. It leads to a major problem for most people to comprehend. The ground holds far more heat than the paltry amount of h2o in the atmosphere. What you describe isn't even a mechanism, it's a misunderstanding on your part. H2o vapor has some mass and retention ability but it also has very similar IR blocking as co2. As for h2o, it's lighter than the primary air molecules and the molar ht capacities for air at 0C is 29 while h2o is 37 at 100C. I didn't have time to do a thorough search to try to find h2o vapor Cp at 20C but suffice to say it will be less and the air value should be more. What's more, the h2o vapor will increase less in temperature for a given influx of energy than will dry air as Cp is a measure of how much heat energy it takes for a certain amount of the material to be heated by 1 deg K (same amount of temperature change as 1 deg C).

Given the same temperature and humidity, the IR blocking of the h2o in the swamp will be the same regardless of the presence of co2. It is this IR blocking and not the minor increase in the specific ht of the atmosphere that is responsible for the vast majority of the temperature differences between the desert and the swamp. At sealevel in the swamp, about the maximum percent of h2o vapor present at 100% humidity is going to be about 2%.

The average temperature at night in the desert over time will be higher when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere due to its ability to absord heat and warm the atmosphere as you clearly know as water as you say does the same thing only better, thankfully or the world would be an ice ball. The amount of water in the atmosphere is huge, and therefore changes in the overall water content of the atmosphere are small. CO2 however absorbs the heat and warms the atmosphere arround it, this warming allows that atmosphere to evaporate more water vapour in a non linear way, and therefore more actual water vapour is held in the atmosphere and there is a greater overall warming effect, this is well recognised and studied and it enhances the effect of CO2 warming by a factor of 2 or so. The warmer the atmosphere gets the more water vapour it holds the hotter it gets this relationship is none linear, which is often the case in a complex system and precisely why the very small changes in the sun's intensity over 1000 years can have such dramtic effects.

Sorry but the h2o is it's own ghg. It doesn't need co2 to act. It doesn't enhance co2's ability to act - in fact, it substantially duplicates it. The co2 will still have what effect it has plus some of what was being done by the h2o if there were no h2o. The effects of both are negative on each other as to the total amount of IR blocked compared to what either would do without the other present. Combined, both perform less well than they would separately but the total is in excess of either individually.

An absence of co2 in the atmosphere would ostensibly result in about 3 deg C less temperature as that is the total contributions of co2. While appearing catastrophic to many, that's about 1/2 the maximum drop generated by something like a super volcano impulse or the normal cyclical variations as seen in the ice cores. The usual peaks in the warm times as I recall are about 3 deg. C warmer than now. While 3 deg. might be a really significant ice age, it's no snowball earth.

IPCC 2007, Pielke web blog, Hansen science sept 2006, you should read that paper explains how the tropics arround East India and Western pacific not the poles are a lot more accurate measures of global temperature changes as they are not subject to THC variations and when you look at temperature changes there 0.2C a decade is uniquely rapid and most skeptics even feel that this event is more rapid than previous, Paradox here feels it is due to the natural forcings alignments including ones we don't know yet like magnetic fields whose influences as you know are pure speculation and even if they aren't they always been present yet this event is unique.

Why should I believe Hansen when his numbers are wilder and whackier than IPCC's?

CO2 levels were lowest ever in the Co2 record of the world between 200-290 for the last 650,000years at least, therefore we have increased very low levels, to still very low levels, but enough to increase the forcing by 0.6w/m2 in less than 50 years, and climatologists can do maths.

Anyone can do math when the problems are made simple enough - like by leaving out the important details. Ever see the horse that adds or the dog that counts? (note both are actually fakes but then ...).

Your forcing number is likely to be very high and in error. Hansen is probably off by a factor of 5-6 too high.

As for the clouds the link to cosmic rays is tenuous and real climate and climatologists in UK feel it is very over exaggerated.

I bet the weather girl does too.

Being invested in one thing and having another embarassing factor roll in can be worse than doing the weather on national tv while in the buff.

I've only ever read 30-40% reflectance and cirrus clouds less than that they let short radiation through and the water in the clouds is also heated causing a heating effect and when worked by LIn et al in 2001 the clouds where a positive forcing.

Well, what's reflected never gets in. Whats absorbed at the top ofthe atmosphere never reaches the surface, at least in any amount.

Grasping at cosmic rays is rather odd to me, when GHG as clear, where they come from, how much, what effect they have all very thoroughly investigated.

Evidently you've never observed the surface flux of cosmic rays with a detector as large as a human body or a 19" television set. While you'd be seeing 2ndary particles created in the atmosphere rather than the original, you'd also find that there is a tremendous amount of them being detected every second.

They come from all over, including the sun. At the highest end which are very infrequent, some little atoms like single iron atoms pack the punch of a fastball in a baseball game (that's a baseball thrown at over 90mph and has enough kinetic energy to kill someone were they to be hit in the head by that baseball).

The net result though is that they have known effects on cloud formation. The discovery of them was the Wilson Cloud Chamber Experiment. The forgotten purpose of that experiment was to ascertain the cause of cloud formation.

It's also known thru forensic science that the cosmic ray flux has diminished over time. One little aside - a huge intergalactic cloud at about 6 million deg. C and estimated to be about 300m light years across has very recently been discovered with the expectation there are quite a few supermassive black holes imbedded and some are thinking it might be the source of much of the super high energy cosmic rays.

The sun also produces lower energy cosmic rays in copious amounts. Since these are all charged particles, they change path with magnetic fields and the sun has a magnetic field that tends to deflect and reduce the cosmic ray flux with increased magentism. The sunspot cycle is a short term 11 yr nominal cycle variation of that field. It's also been observed that there's been a 40% increase in overall field strength over the last 50 yrs or so. To date, I've heard of no forensic approach to determining long term values. The closest being since the advent of the telescope, sunspots have been counted daily and recorded, giving a few hundred years of data. It turns out the last little micro mini ice age and cooling in the 18th and early 17th century did occur in a time where no observable spots were present for about 50 years.

As for global warming pushing money to the east thats ecomonics mate not global warming, China can produce things cheaper than the west and USA isn't exactly putting much legisation to stop GHG emissions in THe USA has a massive trade deficit with China the rise of the East is nigh your right.

Actually, it's politics like the driving force for the global warming scare. From what I hear, one of their new export products is some sort of dirty coal fired generating plant that they build (because they can under kyoto) then dismantle and sell them to countries who are not supposed to build new plants but are permitted to buy and have old/used ones.

As for producing things cheaper, when one has unlimited supplies of slave labor and doesn't need to worry about working conditions or about despoiling the environment, production costs are miniscule compared to that of the west. It also sounds like they're starting to do their bit on global warming too by reducing their population. It seems their 'undesirables' (like insurgents) are now helping them start up a new medical business - human spare parts like organs.