HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
REGISTER   |   LOGIN   |   HELP
Blogs
Captain Hybrid

Global Warming: Are the Skeptics Right?

< Previous Page 2 / 3 Next >
View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
<<  <  Page 36/54  >  >>
jeffbiss
User Rank
Gold
Koch
jeffbiss   2/14/2012 11:31:24 AM
NO RATINGS
Glad to see you made an entry Mr. Koch! Or, is it you Mr. Koch?

jeffbiss
User Rank
Gold
Weather people
jeffbiss   2/14/2012 11:23:52 AM
jh2012,

There's a big difference between a climatologist and a meteorologist. Climatology is about the signal, and meteorology is about the noise. Also, many weather people are simply talking heads and not meteorologists, so don't expect too much.

You really should do some research before you post. Most of what you claim is more than likely due to you not being a climatologist, so why post them, or at least let the researchers speak for themselves by providing links to their work. And your claim about global cooling prediction in the 1970s is just not true!

jh2012
User Rank
Iron
Can Weatherperson Predict Beyond 10 Days? What about a Climate Scientist?
jh2012   2/14/2012 10:40:15 AM
My local Weatherperson can't predict the temperature within 1 degree C beyond today, much less 10 days - and I'm expected to believe in predictions of tens of years? Back in undergrad days, circa 80s, Ohio State University measured Ice Core samples and one of the parameters of interest was temperature. The fluctuations were significantly larger (defined as greater than 10 degrees C) change in temperature as compared with what we're arguing about (less than 3 degrees C) over a fairly short time span (defined as between 50 and 200 years). While I'm no Geologist or Climatologist, if these changes occcured pre "man-made/caused" interference, I'm sure we'd all (humans) be more certain the Scientists of today knew what they were talking about if they could identify, explain, and define / model the cause of these changes and incorporate them sucessfully into their current working (? not sure how well it's working - neither is my local Weatherperson, so this must be a subjective term) model of the earth's environment.This model would be able to plot the large increases as well as large decreases and accurately (within 1 degree perhaps - or is that asking too much?).

Bottom line, I'll have more confidence when my local Weatherperson can predict daily temperatures a year in advance and be more than 3 sigma accurate. I'm expected to be within 3 sigma in my calculations / tests / and predictions in my job. Heck, just to give them the benefit of doubt, make it very simple and only predict the daily temperatures 2 weeks in advance and be within 2 sigma accurate. At that point, then I'll have much more confidence in their predictions of tens of years. The best my Weahterpeson can do is a 3 degree F guarantee for tomorrow (not any further out than that and it should be noted that the prediction is given at 11 pm the night before) - and they are no where near 99% accurate. Based on this demonstrated peformance - I can only expect the current estimations of Climate warming will have similar results.

One last thing; the reason so much effort was put into the ice core studies back in the 70s - 80s is because during the 70s it was predicted by these same Scientists that we were going to see temperatures dropping.

Doc D
User Rank
Bronze
Re: it probably won't happen
Doc D   2/14/2012 10:39:19 AM
Glenn

It gives me hope that some people are capable of seeing the bigger picture when it comes to GW.  I agree with all your thoughs.  Here is one more to add to your list.  Weather or not GW is the end result, what about all the man made posions that a being dumped into our world everyday?

Sport
User Rank
Silver
Re: The Cloud Effect
Sport   2/14/2012 10:12:17 AM
As the article stated, this is a very complex issue and only a handful of people understand it deeply.  I am not one of them.  A lot of this climate change witch hunt revolves around whether or not it's man made.  As such, things like volcanic activity, the sun, and many other "natural" influences are discounted.  This is why I say this is a witch hunt and not science.  There is little if any evidence that the last 10 years has yeilded any global warming. Man made or otherwise.  Core samples and the like can give us pretty good information to help construct a historical record of how things were.  We were in an Ice age.  Of course we have warming...   We can make some educated analysis but that doesn't mean we know everything.  The witch hunters say we have to take action now.  If that's the case, we should be moving away from the shore.

WhEEngineer
User Rank
Gold
Re: What information is correct?
WhEEngineer   2/14/2012 10:09:05 AM
10 years ago the 'scientists' warned us that the world would end in 10 years if we didn't drastically change our lifestyles.  It's 10 years later and the world is still here, better than ever.

WhEEngineer
User Rank
Gold
Where's the rising water?
WhEEngineer   2/14/2012 10:07:24 AM
If GW was happening and the poles are melting, where's the rising oceans?  There is no confirmation of water rising other than normally.  It's ok to talk about the possibilty of GW but to demand usary taxes on individuals for living is beyond belief.

Considering North America was covered in glaciers 30,000 years ago points to natural warming and cooling trends.  We are at the end of a natural warming trend and a cooling one is coming.

No, there is no man made global warming.

Glenn Tamblyn
User Rank
Silver
Re: The Cloud Effect
Glenn Tamblyn   2/13/2012 6:25:48 PM
Ivan

 

Yes, you are partly right. Clouds are an important part of the GH Effect. Schmidt et al 2011 estimated the percentage contributions to the total GH effect of various components as

 

H2O 50%

Clouds 25%

CO2 20%

Other gases 5%

Clouds aren't a larger component than this because the entire planet isn't covered by clouds. And only some cloud types contribute to GH warming. Other types have a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight to space.The net effect of both of these is approximately neutral, perhaps slightly net warming.

So your comment " I would think the cloud effect has much greater effect than the CO2 concentration changes we have seen" is true. However the issues is whether the cloud component grows as the GH Gas component grows to maintain the same relative proportions. We know that the H2O component has to grow since in a warmer atmosphere you can have a higher water vapour content and in fact you need a higher water vapour content to keep enough of the atmosphere near Water Vapour Saturation to allow clouds to form. This is the water vapour feedback.

The question of what feedback clouds then cause depends mainly on whether the proportions of different cloud types changes. If they current ratios remain, even with an increase in total cloud cover the effect would be small as they two cloud behaviours cancel out. All the current research suggests that cloud changes will have a small net warming effect, but not on the same scale as the water vapour increase.

Ivan Kirkpatrick
User Rank
Platinum
The Cloud Effect
Ivan Kirkpatrick   2/13/2012 2:35:31 PM
NO RATINGS
I know from my Heat transfer classes that the ground can radiate heat to the sky.  Effectively this is the main source of heat transfer in an environment absent conduction and convection effects so there is only radiative heat transfer.  If the sky is clear, the ground is effectively radiating heat to the sky which appears to have a termperature of around 4 degrees K as I recall.  this means there is a large radiative heat transfer.

If there is a could cover, the sky (cloud) is at a much warmer temperature and nearly the same as the ground so the net heat transfer is very small compared to the open sky heat transfer.

This effect is not related to the GH gas properties at all.  I I had to guess, I would think the cloud effect has much greater effect than the CO2 concentration changes we have seen.  The only question is how much the cloud effect provides in terms of a blanket to protect the earth's surface at night.  

I think it might be possible to construct some simple models of the atmosphere and examine the effects of CO2 and cloud cover in isolation.  Without trying to include so many additional variables it might be possible to estimate the effects of CO2 concentration compared to a cloud effect.  If these were the only variables within the simulation it might show some useful data without having to go through the full blown or more complete modeling problems. 

 

Non-mag
User Rank
Silver
Re: C'mom - We need at least 200 comments
Non-mag   2/13/2012 8:31:46 AM

'Minds are like parachutes — they only function when open.'

Thomas Dewar

<<  <  Page 36/54  >  >>
Partner Zone
More Blogs from Captain Hybrid
A pure electric car with a lithium-ion battery can lose as much as 57% of its range when the temperature dips and 33% when the mercury rises, a new AAA study says.
Volkswagen AG is developing a lithium-air battery that could triple the range of its electric cars, but industry experts believe it could be a long time before that chemistry is ready for production vehicles.
After reading all the recent news reports about Tesla Motorsí proposed ďGigafactory,Ē itís hard not to wonder about the future of battery-electric cars, and how low their costs can really go.
Californiaís plan to mandate an electric vehicle market isnít the first such undertaking and certainly wonít be the last. But as the Golden State ratchets up for its next big step toward zero-emission vehicle status in 2018, it might be wise to consider a bit of history.
Tesla Motors plans to build a huge battery factory in hopes of making electric cars affordable for the general public.
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service