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

[Paradox]

Australian scientists call for ocean network probe

Arctic sea ice shrinks to record low

Storm Track

[Paradox]

Hundreds get naked on glacier to expose climate change

The men got the short end of the stick (pun intended) on his one.

[Paradox]

[Windguy]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=287490

Another update on Dean from Australia.

[cbacba]

Here is a graph showing the Hitran absorption curve for the atmosphere. Absorption includes both downdwelling and upwelling power. Temperature here is the standard atmosphere curve. Curves for both current molecular concentrations and for current with a doubling of CO2. At this scale, there's no way to distinguish between the 2xco2 and current graphs. Values are power per Km per m^2.

While not visible on the graph, the downdwelling energy is actually distributed across the atm depth fairly regularly. Almost all of the absorption on the upwelling occurs well within 1km, with about 20W/m^2 occuring within the first 4 meters (12 feet).

(edited to correct change in image addr)

[Paradox]

The jury is still out on global warming

Scientists: Polar ice clouds may be climate change symptom

[cbacba]

Here's some more charts.

KISS Calculated Incoming Solar Insolation, TOA and surface





KISS Calculated Outgoing Radiation, Surface and TOA







Absorption for extremely short pathlengths



Absorption for moderately short pathlengths



All the diagrams are calculated using the Hitran database and basic thermodynamics.

The absorption for surface emissions indicates that a tremendous portion is absorbed very low in the atmosphere and relatively little is absorbed higher up.

50% of the energy is dissipated by 300m and a whopping 25% is dissipated in less than 40 meters. And, over 4 watts/m^2 is dissipated in the first 10cm above the surface. All this is for the current molecular concentrations.

Over the entire atmosphere, the difference between current molecular concentrations and current with 2x co2 (from now) amounts to 3.2W/m^2. At the far low end, differences rise to as much as 6w/m^2 due to additional absorption of 2xco2 but at higher altitudes, this differences diminishes down to the point that above 1km, there's very little difference in the dissipation per height segment between the current and the co2 doubled value. In other words, the dissipation occurs only in the lower atmosphere and there is actually less dissipation of outgoing energy for the 2x co2 than for current concentrations by a very small amount.

This only includes surface radiation and does not include disspation or heat flow from reradiation or from convection. In any case, there is a very significant heat flow going on already with normal concentrations. This also tends to be only about a 3% increase in the heat absorption in the first 1km.

[Paradox]

ODP scientists say no large Northern Hemisphere ice sheets 41 million years ago

Climate change goes underground:

Hinode helps unravel long-standing solar mysteries

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by cbacba

This only includes surface radiation and does not include disspation or heat flow from reradiation or from convection. In any case, there is a very significant heat flow going on already with normal concentrations. This also tends to be only about a 3% increase in the heat absorption in the first 1km.

Hi Cbacba,

We are experiencing a trend that invalidates most of the science we reference. Think about it. In all probability we are facing a solar cycle anomaly that happens once in every 26,000 years. If this is the case, what good are your figures? Granted, I may be wrong but under the circumstances and given what is at stake (not to mention the rapid deterioration of our climate), your science is as useful as a fart in a hurricane. Don't get me wrong, I respect your findings...I just think they will fall on deaf ears.

It is apparent that a few last ditch efforts at profit are being undertaken in the name of progress, but to what end? Our planets wealth is being eradicated by the early stages of a climate change trend (and by the most incompetent limp-dick planners the world has ever known). We are weak when we need to be strong and we are oblivious when we need to be informed. Thank the architects...they should be proud (have another cigar and brandy you imbeciles).

We will have a united world...one united in strife and envy.

Bravo! I have a secret handshake for you....


~Paradox

[cbacba]

Paradox,

There are always changes going on. Even for long time delays, there's always the countdown clock reaching zero, hypothetically speaking. It may not be during the next million years, but there will be an extinction level asteroid hitting. The sun will eventually heat up more, pushing the habitable zone out to Mars and eventually beyond.

Man's most immediate threat is always the one that goes on unrecognized as being a threat. In this case, it's man himself attempting to resolve perceived problems which are not understood and are being resolved by those (central planners) who have no clue as to how much or how little is actually known, not that the decisions are based on anything other than what they perceive is in their best personal interests, regardless of consequences for anyone else. Does corn ethanol come to mind here?

There's always been stuff like that going on. Used to be, envy and greed led to invaisions where the invaders put salt in the fields and poisoned the water well wells of their victims, killing or enslaving the survivors.

This notion of rate of change being high or higher than ever before is another assumption. More than one assumption acutally. We don't know whether it is or not as our records are insufficient to tell. To paraphrase a famous quote that comes to mind - It is far easier to believe that something which has happened before, no matter how unlikely, can happen again than it is to believe that something which has never happened before can happen.

If man is causing the current radical warming of the last half century, then it is because we've reduced the particulates and aerosols in our burning of coal and fossil fuels. That means the solution is simply to remove the pollution controls which were supposed to clean up the environment. Also, getting away from natural gas and going back to coal should also help tremendously, as would cutting down more rainforests and turning them into meadows and farmland, or better yet, turning them into deserts would also dramatically improve the warming situation. The fact that those sorts of things are condemned by the most vociferous complainers from the church of AGW implies a serious disconnect, either in their understanding or their desire to actually effect a cure to the problem.

I stumbled across an interesting book on the web earlier this summer. It concerning the problems of replacing the dwindling supplies of fossil fuel with alternate sources that would prove reliable. It was most enlightening, even though it predated the notion of climate change problems. It seems the author and many others were concerned with running out of coal on the short term with no viable alternatives. The book was written in the mid 19th century, before the discovery of oil and gas and far more coal than they could have imagined in their wildest dreams.

It's starting to become evident to more and more that since it is supposedly coming time for tough choices, there's a lot of those choices which aren't on the table at all and most of those choices which are on the table are all about forcing them and their children into a life of slavery or perhaps even extermination.